Slashdot Mirror


Glen Beck Warns Viewers Not To Use Google

An anonymous reader writes "Glenn Beck has told his viewers to do research, but to not use Google, because 'Google is pretty deeply in bed with the government.' He points to the fact that Google is having some problems overseas, as well as Jared Cohen. Cohen is Director of Google Ideas, has worked with the State Department, and has played a role in the 2009 unrest in Iran. He also mentions social networking in sinister undertones, asking if it's government propaganda."

30 of 1,276 comments (clear)

  1. I think Beck has started to believe his own con by elrous0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Seriously, this guy is about one step away from saving his urine in jars and going all David Koresh on a compound somewhere. Anyone who still takes that clown seriously is either already a paranoid schizophrenic or too stupid to be reasoned with anyway. You would have more luck arguing with a religious fanatic.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    1. Re:I think Beck has started to believe his own con by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You would have more luck arguing with a religious fanatic.

      I thought Glen Beck and his viewers were already religious fanatics, on top of their rampant paranoia.

    2. Re:I think Beck has started to believe his own con by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, he's selling books and getting ratings and a lot of money. Folks who think Beck is crazy are just as bamboozled as any of his fans. It's really hilarious.

      Anyone who still takes that clown seriously is either already a paranoid schizophrenic or too stupid to be reasoned with anyway.

      Yes, but by saying that, *you* have taken him seriously! The attacks on him just make his supporters circle the wagons, and maybe even gain him followers from the stupid "Well, if he's pissing people off he must be doing something right!" crowd.

      I'm thinking of writing a crazy book, and shopping it to one of these neo-con publishers, all to get me some early retirement on the backs of the ideological loons. I'm not sure yet if I should invent a new angle, or tie together multiple existing memes in a new way.

    3. Re:I think Beck has started to believe his own con by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, he's selling books and getting ratings and a lot of money.

      This is the way a lot of psychopaths make a living.

      Folks who think Beck is crazy are just as bamboozled as any of his fans. It's really hilarious.

      I've read this exact sentence many times on this site. Whether or not Beck is schizophrenic is his own dirty secret. He manifestly lacks a sense of compassion for anyone else; whether that's "crazy" or not is irrelevant.

    4. Re:I think Beck has started to believe his own con by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Which market is better to exploit / market fear? A young, highly educated market or a older less-educated market?

      I think /. regularly shows the young, "highly educated" market is plenty susceptible to fear & paranoia.

    5. Re:I think Beck has started to believe his own con by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, he's selling books and getting ratings and a lot of money. Folks who think Beck is crazy are just as bamboozled as any of his fans. It's really hilarious.

      Anyone who sacrifices their honor and dignity, and encourages others to not just abandon rational thinking but to engage in acts of violence, all in order to pad their bank account, is crazy.

      In other words, Beck has to be one sort of crazy (some sort of personality disorder) in order to pretend to be the sort of crazy (sort of paranoid schizophrenia) that he does.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    6. Re:I think Beck has started to believe his own con by NotAGoodNickname · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is a very insightful post. You guys need to understand that Beck/Limbaugh/Maddows/whomever are all alike. They are exploiting your fear of people you see as "opposite" to you in order to make millions of dollars off of their show, books, speaking fees, etc. None of these commentators believe what they are saying no matter what "side" they are on. The truth is that none of them are on "your side". They are interested in their ego and the big bucks. I find it amazing that people spend so much time raging against them. Ignore them and they will go away.

    7. Re:I think Beck has started to believe his own con by paiute · · Score: 5, Insightful

      CNN said one thing....
      time passed
      Fox New said the opposite.

      No, Glen Beck said one thing.
      18 months passed.
      Glen Beck said the opposite.

      --
      If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    8. Re:I think Beck has started to believe his own con by Dachannien · · Score: 4, Insightful

      but exploiting fear in liberals is difficult compared to exploiting fear in conservatives

      You have heard of Al Gore, yes? Or Michael Moore?

      What about the recent campaign by MoveOn.org to "save public broadcasting" because of Republicans moving to cut off funding to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, despite the fact that public broadcasting as a whole gets only a small portion of its financing from the government?

      People from across the political spectrum are open to FUD. The only real difference is which buttons you have to push.

    9. Re:I think Beck has started to believe his own con by elrous0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It still amazes me that other Christian groups will laugh at the silliness of Joseph Smith's Moroni story and then turn around with a straight face and talk about a first-century illiterate peasant revolutionary (killed by the Romans, no less) being the "son" of a omniscient, omnipresent being and flying up to heaven.

      It's all stupid shit to an outsider.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    10. Re:I think Beck has started to believe his own con by gtbritishskull · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Steven Colbert plays a self-serving narcissistic douche on Comedy Central. His show is about making the news funny, not about portraying it accurately. He would be justified in not taking responsibility for anyone taking what he says seriously because his show is on a comedy channel.

      Glenn Beck ?plays? a douche on Fox News. It claims to be a News channel. It is supposed to, and does not claim not to, have accurate and trustworthy information. As such, he is responsible for people taking what he says seriously (and they do). So, whether or not he tries to play a douche on TV, he is still a douche because he claims to be a pundit, not an actor.

    11. Re:I think Beck has started to believe his own con by The+Hatchet · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That is not about fear, it is about anger and outrage at the actions of certain wealthy, rich people in America destroying the things we hold most dear as a country, and have since the days of our founding.

      --
      Where is the mod rating for "scary"? Also, ...
    12. Re:I think Beck has started to believe his own con by tompaulco · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The current liberal market is younger and college level educated. The conservative market are older and although contains college level educated individuals its not as high as the liberal market.
      Statistics show that there are percentage wise more college educated republicans than democrats. Statistics also show that there are percentage-wise for more high school dropouts among democrats than among republicans. The only statistic which shows higher education among democrats is the slightly higher percentage of post graduate among democrats
      I hate to point this out, but those same fearful old conservatives 40 years ago were probably young educated liberals, and 40 years from now, today's young educated liberals will be fearful old conservatives. That's just the way it works. When we are young and essentially have not much money money and little responsibility and are getting supported more or less by the government through the education system, we selfishly want the government to continue those social and educational benefit programs which benefit us, then when we get older, get a job, get responsibilities, get taxed, we tend to selfishly want to keep the money which we have been working so hard to get. Looking out for number one is the name of the game in both cases, but don't feel bad, because if it weren't for looking out for number one, then we wouldn't be here today.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    13. Re:I think Beck has started to believe his own con by gtbritishskull · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Public Broadcasting? Really? Is that the best you can come up with?

      You are comparing defunding of a public service to "the muslims are gonna kill us".

      You know us liberals, if we don't have public broadcasting then our life isn't worth anything. We might just all commit suicide.

    14. Re:I think Beck has started to believe his own con by Hatta · · Score: 4, Insightful

      exploiting fear in liberals is difficult compared to exploiting fear in conservatives

      I WISH someone would try to exploit my fears. If there were more people out there afraid of over reaching police powers and corporate control of the justice system, this country would be a much better place.

      The difference between conservative fears and liberal fears is that conservative fears are based in fantasy, liberal fears are based in reality. No, there are not, nor will there ever be Death Panels. On the other hand, yes the US government does actually spend over a billion dollars a year imprisoning its own citizens for doing nothing more than growing plants and consuming them.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    15. Re:I think Beck has started to believe his own con by aztektum · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I grew up in small town (population ~500) midwest. My teachers would ride me over reading comic books in middle school/high school. I was wasting my time with figments of my imagination.

      I saw these same people leaving the church each Sunday. It did not at all instill a sense of respect for them.

      --
      :: aztek ::
      No sig for you!!
  2. Well, obviously . . . by Attack+DAWWG · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If someone does a Google search, they may, just possibly, find out the truth about something.

    And that possibility is what people like Glenn Beck find the most frightening.

  3. Not Just Google, Suspect All Other TV Networks! by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Insightful
    From his rant:

    I would look into all the people the State Department are working with; MSNBC, CBS, gosh, MTV.

    Just say it, every news outlet but Fox, right? It's the only thing stopping you from busting out the "trust no one" hyperbole, right?

    Maybe we should start watching those networks a little bit and seeing what their news coverage is like.

    Why don't we watch all of them and judge them fairly against each other? Or do you just want scrutiny only on the networks you're not on?

    Who are these groups? Who are they? Are they right, are they left, are they clean, are they dirty, are they front groups? I don't know.

    Wait, wait, wait, so what are you accusing them of? Absolutely nothing? And if you don't know then why are you telling us to investigate them? Maybe because you know nobody will do it and instead they'll just continue listening to you? "Is Glenn Beck, good, bad, is he left, is he right, is he clean, is he dirty? I don't know. Maybe you should keep your eye on him?"

    May I recommend, if you're doing your own homework, don't do a Google search. Seems to me that Google is pretty deeply in bed with the government. Maybe this is explaining why Google is being kicked out of all the other countries?

    My god, would you please just make a statement instead of repeated leading questions?! How is Google any more "in bed" with the government than Microsoft or Yahoo?

    Are they just a shill now for the United States government? Who is Jared Cohen? Is he private citizen or government operative? And isn't this the second Google guy we've found? This is the second Google executive now being exposed as an instigator of a revolution.

    Your little pointer stick and board didn't do much to lead to conclusive evidence that Cohen has "instigated a revolution."

    I couldn't get the MM site to load but the Youtube version worked for me and holy crap what a load of horseshit. I saw Glenn Beck on TV in a waiting room once and thought it was a joke. The amount of faulty, leading, incomplete logic here is just staggering, even in this video. Instead of wasting my time itemizing everything wrong about what he's saying and pointing out the obvious, I should have just taken Salon's advice and done something more constructive.

    --
    My work here is dung.
  4. Broken clock right. News at 12:00... 12:00... by Junior+J.+Junior+III · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well, it is kindof true. Google is very big brother in the way they gather data about their users.

    For that matter, just about any large internet company is going to be in bed with whatever governments whose jurisdiction they operate within. It's called "compliance with law enforcement". It's very patriotic for corporations to work with governments. Of course, if you have nothing to hide, it's fine, right?

    The other reason Beck might hate the internet, of course, is that the internet is just an outgrowth of yet another giant government project. We all remember ARPA and DARPA, right?

    --
    You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
  5. Re:We worship the blowhard by CRCulver · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm not sure Slashdot is that left-leaning. At least, not those readers who leave comments. Any time a discussion of the welfare state comes up, one can always expect a flood of Libertarian comments.

  6. Re:We worship the blowhard by gman003 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In other words, Glenn Beck is a professional troll?

  7. Re:We worship the blowhard by piripiri · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In other words, Glenn Beck is a professional troll?

    Yes.

  8. Re:We worship the blowhard by corbettw · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The reason /. has a left leaning bias is because most honest and intelligent people are left leaning.

    I can see you're not a true Scotsman.

    --
    God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
  9. Re:Who? by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Either he's right, and Google is also actively trying to discredit him, or he's an idiot.

    From the sages of Monty Python . . .

    "Well I feel very keenly that the idiot is a part of the old village system, and as such has a vital role to play in a modern rural society, because you see ... There is this very real need in society for someone whom almost anyone can look down on and ridicule. And this is the role that ... this is the role that I and members of my family have fulfilled in this village for the past four hundred years... "

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  10. Re:Facts? by ledow · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's not facts that are the problem. It's the illogical leaps from facts into craziness that are the problem, and stating opinion as fact. If you do that, you need a good reputation.

    I pretty much *guarantee* that Google has to do whatever the federal enforcement says. It's called the law. To make the leap from that to "use another search engine" is an irrelevant and illogical conclusion unless you can provide facts that other search engines aren't similar affected by any government whose jurisdiction they operate in. And in terms of things this guy has said, it's nothing.

    The only thing you can take away from someone else's opinion is reliant on their reputation. This guy believes and has said a lot of crap, quite publicly, and not denounced it until months after it's caused him a lot of trouble - including having to backtrack on quite clearly calling someone (the US president) a racist.

    He has a self-confessed history of severe, long-term alcohol and drug abuse, suicide attempts, he's used miscarriage as a joke to play off the mother, he's had several high profile firings, several arrests, several cities, organisations, churches and advertisers have rushed to disassociate themselves with him and he has more conspiracy theories of his own than an X-Files fan club.

    And, personally, he claims to have been saved from professional obscurity (and several other things) by God, and belongs to the church of latter-day-saints, which kinda rules him out of my personal "might have an brain in there somewhere" list.

    Nobody really cares if the facts are wrong or right. It's his interpretation of them that leads him into ridicule. I *know* that if I drop my laptop, it will hit the floor. I don't explain it away as a government conspiracy that all laptops are subject to gravity in order that the US can drill holes in the Earth's crust and steal my laptop. The *fact* I stated is true, the opinion / explanation is almost certainly 100% bullshit and as "unproveable" as any other.

    Seriously, from not knowing anything of the guy, within about 20 minutes of independent research, I've put him on my personal "Ignore anything he says" blacklist.

  11. Re:blocking facts and research by Skarecrow77 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So, having a fiscally conservative, socially liberal, and generally libertarian viewpoint on government otherwise (i.e. I don't fit into a neat little political "color"), I felt the need to comment:

    1. I agree.
    2. I agree, although taxes punish everybody (Except those who don't pay any of course).
    3. I'd say that a good number of problems we have in society today came from religion(s) in the first place. That said, I agree that government should not be attempting to legislate morality or good behavior. Their job is to enact and execute laws within the scope of their charter necessary to the function of society, and then provide for justice when such laws are broken.
    4. Whose god? any specific one? Zeus? Allah? Odin? Jehova? Vishnu? Paladine? I am of the opinion that "endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights" basically translates in modern speech to "These rights are present from birth, by virtue of being a human being, and not given or privlidged by the government, thus not capible of being controlled by them". Given the religious freedom bent of early colonists, as well as the founding father's belief in a strong seperation of church and state, I have a had time believing that they'd be referencing any specific god when they mention "creator", which is of course probably why they used that exact phrase.
    5. Once again, whose god, whose morality, and doesn't this contradict what you just said in point #3?
    6. It's funny you quote that specific line, since it was originally "life, liberty, and the pursuit of property". Really it was, look it up. It was changed to "happiness" to be more general.
    7. That is true, but as much as it sucks to admit it, the vast majority of them have a pretty good reason for hating us. We're dicks, really we are.. Sure there a few loonies that have been whipped into a fervor by charismatic madmen and by the media, but the real truth is that the US has used it's position of power in the world to basically be giant assholes when we want to be? Example. Did you know that after the Iran-contra affair, the US was convicted of war crimes against Nicaragua, but we used our position as a permanent member of the UN security council to veto every attempt to punish us after that conviction? That's just one example. Really a lot of the people in the world who are pissed off at us have a legitimate gripe. I'm not an apologist, I'm simply saying don't turn a blind eye to the complaints of the rest of the world just because they're not on your team.

  12. Re:you might find something in his past by OzPeter · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "he doesn't want to you read about what he might have done back in 1990"

    I googled this... it was a sex change operation. He used to be a man.

    No No No .. you aren't doing this right. You can't come out and make a statement of absolute fact that can be checked. You need to allude to it and let your audience ASSUME that it was a fact. This is simple Beckism 101. What you should have said is:

    I googled Beck looking to see if he had a sex change. Did he lose his balls in the past? I don't know. But you have to admit he acts pretty strange all the time, and I haven't seen him deny not losing his balls. But don't believe anything I say .. you have to make up your own mind over this.

    And while you are pondering that let me tell you about [Fear mongering sponsor de jour] whose products I have been buying for years. If you don't have this [end of the world survival product] then you don't [love your family] ...

    --
    I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
  13. Re:We worship the blowhard by paiute · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The majority of atheists are left-leaning because the right doesn't really play nice with atheism.

    The majority of atheists are progressive/liberal because that is where the evidence takes you.

    --
    If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
  14. Insulting as news by lttlordfault · · Score: 4, Insightful
    As a UK citizen I only ever see Glen Beck in satire shows, the first thing that struck me after watching this was how insulting the spinning fox news icon in the corner of the screen was. Could anyone point out a single factual piece of news in that entire piece? Everything he said was qualified with clauses like "it seems to me" or simply forming his babble in questions.

    How on earth can this tripe be paraded on a news channel, giving it a faux sense of authority over the facts.

    I have no problem with political opinion pieces on tv but don't try masquerade it as news as that simply insults my intelligence.

  15. Re:it's not ideology, it's ideological whoring by Evtim · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You know, I was expecting your post to be modded up, but no. Alas, I spent my mod points yesterday.

    Anyway, here is a funny thing. My country (Bulgaria) was building for many years a second nuclear power plant. The first one was almost completely closed because EU would not accept us with it (the reactors were dangerous bla bla..). So, since few years a massive debate about the second one rages across the media. Over time the two major opinions settled as such:

    The so-called progressive, right wing, pro-western people are against it, because, they say it will need the Russians for the fuel and processing the waste. So we will INCRESE our energy dependence from Russia.

    The left-leaning, pro-Russian crowd is for it. As you can guess their motives are exactly like the one above, only in their book this is a good thing.

    There was of course the infinitely small minority of realists and nerds who were always for it, because of reality (let’s not go deeper into this – why nuclear power is back in the world and why did it take 50 years to realize the obvious)

    And then Wikileaks came around. And one of the cables was dealing exactly with this power station. Now, pay attention:

    According to the American diplomats in Bulgaria building the station DECREASES our energy dependence from Russia and Russian oil and gas tycoons intentionally crafted the anti- power station propaganda. The cable explains the logic behind this statement at length; I won’t reproduce it here.

    I almost fell from the chair reading this cable. Why, oh why I don’t have the possibility to high jack all the media in BG and just shout, “Go read the cable, you idiots!”
    The people still argue like crazy about the issue and none has read the wikileaks. What a bunch of idiots we humans are, no?