Goliath and the Beast
A hypothesis about audience capture
For anyone who knows me, it's no surprise, in the least, that I care deeply about the Charlie Kirk story. For me, this is every bit as interesting as covid, blm, trans, or mrna. The reason why the CK story fascinates me so much is, much like the other mentioned stories, it diagnosis the system. And please please please don't tell me some young introverted, D&D playing kid, suddenly was able to pull off a clean shot, just over 100 meters away (much like Thomas Crooks with DJT) and able to thwart the highest levels of security agencies. I mean, you can tell me that, but you are doing me a favor by signaling that you are not a serious thinker.
Anyways, as a somewhat seasoned podcast listener since 2010’ish, my original love was with the likes of Dan Carlin, Jordan Peterson, and Joe Rogan. I bring that up because I’m starting to notice a new pattern when it comes to the podcast space (although it may had always existed and I'm just a bit slow)
Most recently, I fell in love with the work of Baron Coleman, a career lawyer turned podcaster, and his investigations into the Charlie Kirk investigation. I couldn't be more impressed with how thorough and rigorous a person can be when it comes to researching. Okay, I know there are a lot of people who are that way, including Bret and Heather, but it was fun to watch him pick apart police records, court documents, and also random stuff like flight information that absolutely proved that certain people were lying. Anyways..
Okay, so, I had a weird thing happen to me that I didn't really think significant at the time. I was regularly attending Baron's chat sessions and I enjoyed occasionally contributing to his super chats by asking what I hoped were thoughtful questions. However, his show got blown up and seemed flooded by a lot of money but also stupid questions or comments. I found myself no longer wanting to participate and I now (just recently) wonder if that was all by design.
But yeah, does anyone else notice that? I think the same thing happened to Scott Adams, he was so dependant on his live chat audience, I wouldn't be surprised if most his contributors were paid shills. I'm just saying, it makes sense to me. That is what I would do if I wanted to prevent crowd sourcing information and slow a persons investigations down. Just sayin, that's just low hanging fruit if you are some invested interest with money at your disposal
Upon reflection, if I had to come up with an analogy, I would say goliath is performing a DDOS (Distributed Denial-of-Service) attack, of sorts. The goal is to flood the information space with garbage (mostly compliments to seem geniune) which results regular contributors like me to get burnt out. I think that is a cheep investment to contribute a few hundred or thousands in super chats if it means they can shoulder out normal conversation.
I remember reading about stories long ago how Microsoft would hire the most talented programmers, not because they needed them, but because it prevented their competitors from hiring them. Let's face it, rendering a persons media space unproductive by flooding it with low IQ comments and questions seems like a valid strategy to me, although, I must admit, I do ocasionally state (allegedly) low IQ questions/comments with zero financial incentives whatsoever :-)
We have "cartesian blinders being put on us so that we are trying to make sense out of scraps of information and hints." - @bretweinstein
WEINSTEIN: I mean, even if you have your villains who are engaged in the behavior that motivated this war in Iran, even if that's the story, presumably most of the people in the path of these ferocious bombings that he is describing are not deserving of going back to the Stone Age.
In fact, I distinctly remember him telling us that part of what we were up to was liberating the people of Iran from their tyrannical regime.
So if it's the tyrannical regime that justifies the ferocious bombing, then it's a tragedy that other people are going to be sent back to the Stone Ages with them. Right?
HEYING: It's it's not a narrative. It's an incoherent set of talking points.
WEINSTEIN: Yeah, it's a kind of cheerleading that is completely inappropriate from the perspective of the president.
Bret Weinstein discusses the Trump administrations "back to the stone age" recent remarks in the latest episode of The Evolutionary Lens, Episode 320 "Are we back in the stone age?" on DarkHorse.
Bret Weinstein explains, "If you stop businesses from starting here, and if you drive people so that they move elsewhere—even though it's difficult to do—then the point is the tax base dries up, which then forces you to become even more predatory for the people who stayed.
And that's really the thing, right? They're setting themselves up so that they have to go after more and more people, because the people who are starting new businesses are not going to do it here."
