NYT article says Tucker Carlson "the most racist show in the history of cable news"

[tehdang]

Do you have an actual complaint that goes any deeper than not liking the headlines?

The argument reduces to deciding when complaints about the size and scale of illegal immigration, and why lawmakers have appeared to not take effective action against it, crosses a line into racist conspiracy theory. I don't expect the NYT to be a good judge of that line, nor do they attempt to distinguish it in the article I read. Citizens may think they're doing it for votes, or to help business interests keep the costs of labor low, or a number of other reasons including demographic change. Democrats for the last twenty years were unabashed to declare the Republican Party dead from demographic trends (see: The Emerging Democratic Majority by Judis). Michael Moore stands out for saying "The Census Bureau has already told us that by 2050, white people are going to be the minority, and I'm not sad to say I can't wait for that day to happen." I have trouble squaring Democratic glee at a shifting demographic landscape in America, with calling it racist to suggest Democrats are encouraging it through immigration inaction. Reactionary rhetoric may be racist rhetoric, but it isn't a sufficient condition for it.

I can agree with a lot of the other side-stuff in the article. NYT is not just doing the racist-branding project. Tucker is obviously a ratings hounds and adopting populism to pursue it. The length of his shows and positions and questions show he will adopt any position and many positions at once to get more viewers or stir up press. He'll say whatever about vaccine or Russia or Trump or January 6th to get people to tune into the controversy or get a rise out of critics. We have shock jocks on radio that do the same. I don't listen to Tucker for that reason, or any other opinion commentator on Fox for that matter.

[Endus]

The argument reduces to deciding when complaints about the size and scale of illegal immigration, and why lawmakers have appeared to not take effective action against it, crosses a line into racist conspiracy theory. I don't expect the NYT to be a good judge of that line, nor do they attempt to distinguish it in the article I read. Citizens may think they're doing it for votes, or to help business interests keep the costs of labor low, or a number of other reasons including demographic change. Democrats for the last twenty years were unabashed to declare the Republican Party dead from demographic trends (see: The Emerging Democratic Majority by Judis). Michael Moore stands out for saying "The Census Bureau has already told us that by 2050, white people are going to be the minority, and I'm not sad to say I can't wait for that day to happen." I have trouble squaring Democratic glee at a shifting demographic landscape in America, with calling it racist to suggest Democrats are encouraging it through immigration inaction. Reactionary rhetoric may be racist rhetoric, but it isn't a sufficient condition for it.

I can agree with a lot of the other side-stuff in the article. NYT is not just doing the racist-branding project. Tucker is obviously a ratings hounds and adopting populism to pursue it. The length of his shows and positions and questions show he will adopt any position and many positions at once to get more viewers or stir up press. He'll say whatever about vaccine or Russia or Trump or January 6th to get people to tune into the controversy or get a rise out of critics. We have shock jocks on radio that do the same. I don't listen to Tucker for that reason, or any other opinion commentator on Fox for that matter.

Carlson resurrected the "great replacement" conspiracy garbage, straight out of the Nazi trash bin.

No one brings that shit up without being a white supremacist fuckhead.

Nobody's calling Carlson a white supremacist because he opposes illegal immigration. They call him a white supremacist because he's a racist authoritarian asshole.

[Kaleredar]

The argument reduces to deciding when complaints about the size and scale of illegal immigration, and why lawmakers have appeared to not take effective action against it, crosses a line into racist conspiracy theory. I don't expect the NYT to be a good judge of that line, nor do they attempt to distinguish it in the article I read. Citizens may think they're doing it for votes, or to help business interests keep the costs of labor low, or a number of other reasons including demographic change. Democrats for the last twenty years were unabashed to declare the Republican Party dead from demographic trends (see: The Emerging Democratic Majority by Judis). Michael Moore stands out for saying "The Census Bureau has already told us that by 2050, white people are going to be the minority, and I'm not sad to say I can't wait for that day to happen." I have trouble squaring Democratic glee at a shifting demographic landscape in America, with calling it racist to suggest Democrats are encouraging it through immigration inaction. Reactionary rhetoric may be racist rhetoric, but it isn't a sufficient condition for it.

You do know that if every man, woman and child in Mexico moved to the United States tomorrow... they'd only form 25% of the US' new population?

So, no, sorry, "illegal immigrants" aren't propelling the Democrats into demographic prominence, the GOP's failure to court minorities, women, and young people has done that.

Why would any minority vote for the GOP, when someone like Tucker Carlson or Donald Trump are out there saying they're all thugs or rapists that are being too uppity for their own good? Why would any young person vote for the GOP? The party that eschews them in favor of lining the pockets of billionaires, calls them lazy for not being handed things like their parents were, and actively fights against meaningful change, all while demonizing LGBTQ+ and minorities whom young people have grown up around and aren't afraid of like the GOP want them to be. Why would a woman vote for the GOP? We can actively see them crafting legislation to wholesale restrict women's rights.


Also, I'm not gonna let your little implication slide here, illegal immigrants don't vote, so shut your mouth with that conspiracy nonsense.

Or are you still waiting on baited breath for them to find something, anything, in Arizona... or Georgia... or Wisconsin... or wherever the GOP claimed the fraud happened without any evidence.

[Edge-]

The argument reduces to deciding when complaints about the size and scale of illegal immigration, and why lawmakers have appeared to not take effective action against it, crosses a line into racist conspiracy theory.

I do love the ways you find to casually gloss over and/or ignore when folks on your side like Carlson literally promote conspiracy theories like the "Great Replacement" conspiracy theory - https://www.insider.com/tucker-carls...-trump-2021-10

He got big support from former KKK Grand Wizard David Duke. I sure wonder why David Duke would be supportive of this?

[tehdang]

You do know that if every man, woman and child in Mexico moved to the United States tomorrow... they'd only form 25% of the US' new population?

So, no, sorry, "illegal immigrants" aren't propelling the Democrats into demographic prominence, the GOP's failure to court minorities, women, and young people has done that.

Why would any minority vote for the GOP, when someone like Tucker Carlson or Donald Trump are out there saying they're all thugs or rapists that are being too uppity for their own good? Why would any young person vote for the GOP? The party that eschews them in favor of lining the pockets of billionaires, calls them lazy for not being handed things like their parents were, and actively fights against meaningful change, all while demonizing LGBTQ+ and minorities whom young people have grown up around and aren't afraid of like the GOP want them to be. Why would a woman vote for the GOP? We can actively see them crafting legislation to wholesale restrict women's rights.


Also, I'm not gonna let your little implication slide here, illegal immigrants don't vote, so shut your mouth with that conspiracy nonsense.

Or are you still waiting on baited breath for them to find something, anything, in Arizona... or Georgia... or Wisconsin... or wherever the GOP claimed the fraud happened without any evidence.

Okay, a little dalliance from you into "Tucker Carlson is wrong on the impact." Great way to claim he's racist. I happen to think Tucker's wrong on a number of things, including what the GOP should do to improve its numbers among hispanics and African Americans, but I can't peer into his soul to discover racial animus.

No real discussion on when it's allowed to say demographic change is racist or not.

And a little touch on election fraud.

I think you meant to respond to a different post.

I do love the ways you find to casually gloss over and/or ignore when folks on your side like Carlson literally promote conspiracy theories like the "Great Replacement" conspiracy theory - https://www.insider.com/tucker-carls...-trump-2021-10

He got big support from former KKK Grand Wizard David Duke. I sure wonder why David Duke would be supportive of this?

I don't really give David Duke penetrating insight, including if he had said this about Obama, Biden, Trump, or yourself. I hear Richard Spencer has changed his twitter badge to NATO, so we better disassociate ourselves pronto.

[Kaleredar]

Okay, a little dalliance from you into "Tucker Carlson is wrong on the impact." Great way to claim he's racist. I happen to think Tucker's wrong on a number of things, including what the GOP should do to improve its numbers among hispanics and African Americans, but I can't peer into his soul to discover racial animus.

No real discussion on when it's allowed to say demographic change is racist or not.

"Not being racist, but blowing every racist dogwhistle there is" isn't a meaningful distinction.

And a little touch on election fraud.

You're the one who mentioned "citizens may think the [democrats are promoting illegal immigration] for votes"

Which I'm not prepared to let slide, your attempts at wry implication aside.

[tehdang]

"Not being racist, but blowing every racist dogwhistle there is" isn't a meaningful distinction.

I can accept that you believe yourself to be able to accurately label racist dogwhistles, and consider everyone that blows enough of them a racist. It aint my definition, it isn't cited by the NYT, but at least we understand each other.

You're the one who mentioned "citizens may think the [democrats are promoting illegal immigration] for votes"

Which I'm not prepared to let slide, your attempts at wry implication aside.

Lemme know when Tucker says illegals swayed the election outcome to make Trump not win.

[postman1782]

I can accept that you believe yourself to be able to accurately label racist dogwhistles, and consider everyone that blows enough of them a racist. It aint my definition, it isn't cited by the NYT, but at least we understand each other.

Lemme know when Tucker says illegals swayed the election outcome to make Trump not win.

https://www.salon.com/2017/12/21/tuc...c-replacement/

This was from 2017. But it is still true. Tucker Carlson is a fucking racist piece of shit. This was when Trump claimed there was evidence of illegals voting, but when they investigated, they couldn't find any.

[unfilteredJW]

I can accept that you believe yourself to be able to accurately label racist dogwhistles, and consider everyone that blows enough of them a racist. It aint my definition, it isn't cited by the NYT, but at least we understand each other.

Lemme know when Tucker says illegals swayed the election outcome to make Trump not win.

We are already well aware you change the definitions of things and bend reality to justify your sadistic worldview.

[Endus]

but I can't peer into his soul to discover racial animus.

See, this is dishonest horse shit.

We don't need to see into his soul. We can just listen to what he's actually saying. That's all it takes. Observation of behaviour. The same way we can tell if someone's a murderer by looking at the evidence, rather than some magical soul-gaze bullshit you made up as a deflection.

[Edge-]

I don't really give David Duke penetrating insight, including if he had said this about Obama, Biden, Trump, or yourself. I hear Richard Spencer has changed his twitter badge to NATO, so we better disassociate ourselves pronto.

I do love when uncomfortable topics for you are brought up you just decide to deflect and distract rather than engage.

- - - Updated - - -

See, this is dishonest horse shit.

It's the greatest defense of any racist: "Sure Dylan Roof targeted a Black church and had made tons of racist comments and rants in the past and was fairly explicit about his violent racism, but we can't really know his heart to know if he believes this!"

[ati87]

[B] but I can't peer into his soul to discover racial animus.

Good thing most of us has ears and eyes so we don't need to see inside Carlson soul to know that what he says is the same crap as what allot of openly racist have been saying for centuries at this point.

At some point maybe the right-wing will start using different talking points (which I doubt) to be racist but for now he really doesn't have to bother.

[Edge-]

Good thing most of us has ears and eyes so we don't need to see inside Carlson soul to know that what he says is the same crap as what allot of openly racist have been saying for centuries at this point.

At some point maybe the right-wing will start using different talking points (which I doubt) to be racist but for now he really doesn't have to bother.

I mean sure he says all those things. Sure he invites all those racist guests on to repeat their talking points. Sure, by all looks and appearances Tucker Carlson is indeed a racist!

But we can't know that because we don't know what's truly in his heart and soul. Can we ever truly know anyone? I don't think so, so we shouldn't be critical of a person based on their words and actions because we don't know if that's the "real them".

Which, apparently, is a valid argument in right wing circles.

[downnola]

Reactionary rhetoric may be racist rhetoric, but it isn't a sufficient condition for it.

The problem with this statement and everything before it is that you set the bar for racist rhetoric so high that only extreme criteria meets your definition. Racism is more subtle and sinister than just using slurs towards people.

The length of his shows and positions and questions show he will adopt any position and many positions at once to get more viewers or stir up press. He'll say whatever about vaccine or Russia or Trump or January 6th to get people to tune into the controversy or get a rise out of critics. We have shock jocks on radio that do the same.

The difference is that a shock jock might influence people to flash drivers who have a certain sticker on their vehicle or get them caught fucking in St Patrick's Cathedral. Tucker's rhetoric is intentionally fueling hatred and political violence towards groups of people. Just read the article for once instead of just nitpicking the headline and trying to flip it around on liberals. It goes into great detail how his show is designed to stoke fear and hatred. It clearly designed this way because it's what some people want to hear and makes money, but it's not an act on Carlson's part.

[Glorious Leader]

I can't peer into his soul to discover racial animus.

Then the conclusion that must be drawn is according to you its impossible for you to see anyone as a racist even self declared racists because "peering into someone's soul" is not something anyone has the ability to do. It is abject nonsense.

Funny enough even if you could know whether or not tuck was an absolute racist (which he is) it would only mean his schtick is just a cynical calculation decided to appeal to racists. You think that's better?Hell why not both? He's DISGUSTING no matter how you want to frame it and your enabling of him makes you a fellow traveler.

[D3thray]

Supporting Tucker Carlson is the litmus test for weird right wingers. Like at that point you are far gone

So when Tucker has repeatedly called out Republicans and Trump (it’s midnight, I’m not digging thru his entire back catalogue to refute one poster in an Internet forum debate) and rightly so… I’m a weird right winger for agreeing? JW

[tehdang]

Supporting Tucker Carlson is the litmus test for weird right wingers. Like at that point you are far gone

Like if you're really jazzed about watching his show and sharing his clips, something's wrong. He does right-wing cheerleading like his job is cheer squad. This is sorta a tangent, though.

[Edge-]

So when Tucker has repeatedly called out Republicans and Trump (it’s midnight, I’m not digging thru his entire back catalogue to refute one poster in an Internet forum debate) and rightly so… I’m a weird right winger for agreeing? JW

I'ma just point out that he didn't mention Trump and this thread is about Tucker Carlson being a racist fuck, but somehow those dots to "racist fuck" and "Trump" seem to have been connected here.

Anyways, oddly enough his criticism of Trump wasn't really about Trump, but usually more complaining when Trump wasn't using enough force against George Floyd protesters: https://www.politico.com/news/2020/0...protest-295628

And his criticism of Republicans in general usually comes in the flavor of, "How dare you, a victim of the violent terrorist attack on the Capitol building on Jan. 6, call the violent terrorist attack on Jan. 6 a 'violent terrorist attack', Ted Cruz?! - https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...rorist-attack/

And promotes the "great replacement" conspiracy theory. And suggests that men tan their balls with red light to somehow increase their masculinity. And complains about the lack of fuckable Oreo mascots. Yeah, at this point Tucker Carlson is pretty fuckin weird and if you're on board with all that you (the royal you) might be kinda a weird racist dude.

[D3thray]

I'ma just point out that he didn't mention Trump and this thread is about Tucker Carlson being a racist fuck, but somehow those dots to "racist fuck" and "Trump" seem to have been connected here.

Anyways, oddly enough his criticism of Trump wasn't really about Trump, but usually more complaining when Trump wasn't using enough force against George Floyd protesters: https://www.politico.com/news/2020/0...protest-295628

And his criticism of Republicans in general usually comes in the flavor of, "How dare you, a victim of the violent terrorist attack on the Capitol building on Jan. 6, call the violent terrorist attack on Jan. 6 a 'violent terrorist attack', Ted Cruz?! - https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...rorist-attack/

And promotes the "great replacement" conspiracy theory. And suggests that men tan their balls with red light to somehow increase their masculinity. And complains about the lack of fuckable Oreo mascots. Yeah, at this point Tucker Carlson is pretty fuckin weird and if you're on board with all that you (the royal you) might be kinda a weird racist dude.

Consider that I was responding to a post claiming supporters of Carlson are weird right wingers and ask yourself why you inject racism.

Of the top of my head a lot of the criticism of Republicans revolves around them A) doing nothing (true) B) supporting something unconstitutional (true) or C) not presenting a clear alternative to Democrats (which is also doing nothing)

I’m definitely not in line with all of Carlsons opinions but a lot of the criticisms I read are rank hyperbole and/or disingenuous.

[Draco-Onis]

I’m definitely not in line with all of Carlsons opinions but a lot of the criticisms I read are rank hyperbole and/or disingenuous.

There's no shortage of montages of his show his racism isn't subtle to say the least, there's a reason why he is heavily clipped in the white supremacy movement.