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

[Elegiac]

"Left wing on economic stuff" in the American context is an argument that has always been a deliberate lie. It presents an ideological divide that does not exist, and whose existence is fundamentally, bafflingly incoherent.

The false argument was that left-wingers want to spend more money, and "fiscal conservativism" wanted to spend less.

That's a lie.

All sides of politics want to spend the same ideological amount of money; "as much as is needed to fund the programs and systems the nation needs and no more". The disagreement is on which programs and systems are needed. "Fiscal conservativism" only gets brought up by social conservatives who know they're bigots, and don't want to reveal that fact, so they pretend they're fiscally conservative, and, say, want to defund and destroy any programs that would address gender/racial/orientation type injustices, whether directly or indirectly. Their goals weren't ever to actually reduce spending, it was to cut spending that benefited those they hate, leading to greater suffering for those groups. They don't want to defund Planned Parenthood because they're concerned about spending, they want to defund it because they hate women.

"Left on economic stuff" is even more ridiculous a lie. Are they talking about dismantling the capitalist economy wholesale and implementing a socialist system in its place? No? Then they aren't talking about left-wing economics, really.

"Left-wing authoritarian" is also problematic. I'm not saying it can't exist, but groups like China and the USSR swing back rightward when their economic systems act to support the political elite over the masses; authoritarianism has a rightward pressure, inherently. The controlled-economy factor is on the liberty-authoritarian axis, not the left-right axis. If you're establishing a functional class/caste system based on association with the government, that's pushing rightward; the further left you go the more hierarchical structures are eliminated/minimized, and it's hard to maintain an authoritarian system without a power hierarchy for the authoritarians to use against the masses.

'Socially liberal but fiscally conservative' can be summed up as follows: "I don't want the gay homeless man to die because he's gay, I want him to die because he's homeless."

[Endus]

'Socially liberal but fiscally conservative' can be summed up as follows: "I don't want the gay homeless man to die because he's gay, I want him to die because he's homeless."

Usually said while also arguing against marriage equality and "grooming" in schools and so on.

It's nearly always just a stupid dogwhistle.

[Ivanstone]

"Left on economic stuff" is even more ridiculous a lie. Are they talking about dismantling the capitalist economy wholesale and implementing a socialist system in its place? No? Then they aren't talking about left-wing economics, really.

I imagine some of them do. Or at least kicking big business square in the nuts.

Look at FDR's policies. Alot of them were progressive and generally good for America. And each of them had to be passed with the help of racist social conservatives.

For example here's the vote break down for the Social Security bill:
https://voteview.com/rollcall/RH0740037

Economic leftists voted for it strongly regardless of their social views. The American South was solidly for it.

[Endus]

I imagine some of them do. Or at least kicking big business square in the nuts.

Look at FDR's policies. Alot of them were progressive and generally good for America. And each of them had to be passed with the help of racist social conservatives.

For example here's the vote break down for the Social Security bill:
https://voteview.com/rollcall/RH0740037

Economic leftists voted for it strongly regardless of their social views. The American South was solidly for it.

Like, I have no idea what you mean by "economic leftists".

Left-wing economics is socialist economics. That's anathema in the USA, less so today, but people still use the S-word like it's a slur.

If you mean neoliberals who are on the American "left", like Biden and such, they're not actually left-wing at all and it's a disservice to the term to use it that way.

[Ivanstone]

Like, I have no idea what you mean by "economic leftists".

Left-wing economics is socialist economics. That's anathema in the USA, less so today, but people still use the S-word like it's a slur.

If you mean neoliberals who are on the American "left", like Biden and such, they're not actually left-wing at all and it's a disservice to the term to use it that way.

People who support left wing economic policies like labor protection and government welfare.

The word "socialism" is anathema in the US. Actual socialism is not.

This is largely irrelevant because we're getting away from my original point. A murderous racist social conservative can hold some ideals that are positive. Some shitheads (ex Depardieu fans) are using those positive ideals to distract us from the idea that a murderous racist social conservative was enabled by other racist social conservatives.

[eschatological]

Regulation and safety nets aren't socialism. Socialism is the state owning industry.

[tehdang]

The fact that he didn't verbatim quote Tucker for the 200 pages of his racist word salad (albeit he nearly did for a passage, as someone else quoted) does not mean the guy wasn't an inspiration, considering the main arguments are the same and that, whatever the guy might say about green nationalism or whatever tangent you prefer to focus on, him driving 3 hours away from home to gun down a majority of black people with, allegedly, a gun decorated with the N word speaks volume as to what his primary motivation actually is.

He criticized Fox News as being run by Jews, and still you want to keep Tucker and Fox in there as inspiration? Absence of connection to Fox News and Tucker, presence of criticism of Fox News, and explicit mention of political ideologies that influenced him. You're really reaching here. He wrote a manifesto, and you're doing your darndest to ignore what it says. I think you're undermined your own argument, by asserting what is safe to ignore ("whatever tangent"), and what should be focused on. He literally wrote down his internet journey to radicalization. Dismiss that and you dismiss your own conclusions.

Also, "it doesn't mean the guy wasn't an inspiration" is a work of art. What better way of stating that you have no argument, besides to force somebody else to prove the negative.

The main arguments aren't even the same. As people have been mentioning in the past two days, considering everything demographic replacement to be aligned with Jewish cabal racial conspiracies also links Democrats into the party. The Emerging Democratic Majority, demography is destiny, majority-minority populations were explicitly linked to Democratic party political triumph. This is going back to 2002. Replacement of whites as the dominant racial group was heralded for political victory for the Democrats and political losses for the Republicans. I'd like to see NPR, NBC, CBS, Yahoo News apologize for their complicity in great replacement theory. Of course, it's nonsense, because all the Fox News, Tucker bs is also nonsense. You're mainstreaming white supremacist shooter ideology, perhaps by accident. Just, stop it.

Also, Tucker's hardly alone in being the sort of anti-diversity champion that would very much inspire that sort of shithead. He's just by far the most prominent, given that he's the single biggest show in the US. Don't be surprised if he takes the heat considering the guy has a history of pushing this Great Replacement idiocy.

Dissociating the attacker from extremists who shout the same rhetoric as him is like dissociating Al-Qaeda from Salafism or (P)IRA crimes from hardline Irish nationalism. Context matters, and extremism feeds itself. Terrorists don't just spring out of the ground with weapons and killing intent.

"Tucker's hardly alone in being the sort of anti-diversity champion that would very much inspire that sort of shithead" is a great rephrase of "I know his inspirations are white supremacists on the internet, and they're out for the seeking, but let me continue to talk about Tucker." Tucker's audience is middle aged and elderly viewers of cable news. He isn't "the most prominent" among 18 year olds fresh out of high school. I hope I don't have to explain to you the cable news audience in general, and Fox News and Tucker in particular.

I'm not surprised that people use white supremacist terrorism as a sort of political weapon to brand all Republicans as inspiration for them or in league with them. It's been happening for too long, and it never pays attention to inconvenient facts (like shooters explicitly rejecting political conservatism, and putting their inspiration to other mass murders like the Norwegian mass murderer and Jewish community center killer).

I like your ending. Let's link it to the first paragraph. "The radical Islamic terrorist quoted things similar to sayings of Muslim imams. Sure, the terrorist didn't give credit to those imams, but it doesn't mean these imams weren't an inspiration! Therefore, Muslim imams are complicit in Al-Qaeda terrorism. They both have overlapping ideology." I'd say the same about complicity in provisional IRA and someone who's an Irish nationalist. You can support Northern Ireland detaching from the UK without being lumped into provisional IRA terrorism, even if the provisional IRA also has intersecting, or similar, messaging in portions of its political aims. You're treading a dangerous road in argument-by-insinuation. Know who else was in favor of a united Ireland? Know who else loved Rachel Maddow and wanted to Tax the Rich?

I love that when batshit rightwing nutjobs claim to be "leftist authoritarian communists," rightwingers claim it's case shut.

The issue is that these guys claim that to make it seem like they're more balanced than they actually are. There's no indication this guy believes anything communist, or "green" or anything like that. He's from bumfuck rural NY, he's not a leftist. His actions scream rightwing.

And his manifesto echoes rightwing talking points throughout.

He's a basket case of rants on both sides of the political aisle. But thank you for explaining the shooter's views in a way more authoritative than the shooter explaining his own views. I'll say it again. It's inconvenient for his ideology to be based out of far corners of internet ideological chaos. So you're going to keep the right-wing/alt-right views intact, and descriptive, and chuck all the rest as not important. This is textbook motivated reasoning. You want to believe any white supremacist shooting based on racial presumptions must be typical right-wing, so things that don't fit that mold should be discarded.

Regulation and safety nets aren't socialism. Socialism is the state owning industry.

Maybe you missed the media treatment of the issue, but left-wing media has been pounding "dumb capitalists don't know food stamps and other welfare are socialism, those dumb right-wingers" for decades now. Opinions vary on what to call mixed-system non-Capitalistic aspects of government.

[Endus]

He criticized Fox News as being run by Jews, and still you want to keep Tucker and Fox in there as inspiration?

When he repeats the same rhetoric nearly word-for-word?

To be blunt; yes. Particularly as "run by" does not mean "everyone on the channel", meaning he could take issue with the ownership but not, say, Tucker Carlson. Who's also outspokenly anti-semitic, I'll note.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/20...t-george-soros

I'm not surprised that people use white supremacist terrorism as a sort of political weapon to brand all Republicans as inspiration for them or in league with them. It's been happening for too long, and it never pays attention to inconvenient facts (like shooters explicitly rejecting political conservatism, and putting their inspiration to other mass murders like the Norwegian mass murderer and Jewish community center killer).

Horse shit.

The Republican platform and agenda directly reflects white supremacism as a central and fundamental tenet. It's not the only tenet, since there's also homophobia and misogyny and such in there too. But white supremacism is the central focus. You can't talk about the continued support for white supremacy in the USA since the Civil Rights era without directly pointing to Republican rhetoric and policy.

It's not a wild hypothetical. It's directly observable fact.

[Breccia]

I'm not surprised that people use white supremacist terrorism as a sort of political weapon to brand all Republicans as--

*LOUD ANNOYING BUZZER*

It took Trump 48 hours to denounce literal torch-carrying Nazis after they murdered a human being.

Then the RNC, knowing this, changed their 2020 platform to "whatever Trump wants".

Thank you for your defense of the RNC, shame even the RNC does not believe you. Your protests might as well be a fart in a Chinese hurricane gun.

I also appreciate that you pointed out that some mass murderers weren't following Carlson, Trump, or other RNC white supremacy. Have you stopped to consider that, when your best defense is "there were other murderers too" that maybe you're on the wrong side?

[eschatological]

He's a basket case of rants on both sides of the political aisle.

Please name the rants he has that fall on the "left side of the political aisle." Because his manifesto screams anti-Black (racism is long a concern of conservatives, not progressives), and anti-Semiticism. Not a leftist policy in sight.

[Edge-]

Please name the rants he has that fall on the "left side of the political aisle." Because his manifesto screams anti-Black (racism is long a concern of conservatives, not progressives), and anti-Semiticism. Not a leftist policy in sight.

Probably back from his days as a failed host on CNN or something.

Which as a sidebar - continues to amuse me that Tucker literally embodies many of the characteristics he attacks in "the elite", yet his audience loves him and doesn't believe he's an elite.

Child of wealthy, influential parents (or step-parents)? Check.
Went to fancy, expensive schools? Check.
Longtime member of the media? Check.
Worked for CNN? Check.
Connections to powerful people? Big check.

He's literally "the elite" that he complains about on his show daily. His audience doesn't seem capable of understanding this contradiction.

[beanman12345]

Does this white supremacist think his arguments are compelling, and that he's convincing anyone that Tucker didn't inspire this?

[eschatological]

Probably back from his days as a failed host on CNN or something.

Which as a sidebar - continues to amuse me that Tucker literally embodies many of the characteristics he attacks in "the elite", yet his audience loves him and doesn't believe he's an elite.

No, tehdang is arguing the shooter had "rants from both sides of the political aisle." So I'm looking for clarification on what leftist policies he suggests the shooter outlined in his manifesto.

[Edge-]

No, tehdang is arguing the shooter had "rants from both sides of the political aisle." So I'm looking for clarification on what leftist policies he suggests the shooter outlined in his manifesto.

Oh lol, at this point I think this is sorta a meme. Just like the "false flag" shit is a meme at this point, and we're already predictably seeing multiple flavors of that conspiracy theory from elected Republicans and conservative "influences" and media personalities.

[Breccia]

Does this white supremacist think his arguments are compelling

You're going to have to be more specific. The shooter, Trump, Carlson or possibly a poster here?

He's literally "the elite" that he complains about on his show daily. His audience doesn't seem capable of understanding this contradiction.

"And folks, trust me when I say don't trust people like me!"

- - - Updated - - -

Oh lol, at this point I think this is sorta a meme.

I'm with @eschatological on this one. @tehdang said "He's a basket case of rants on both sides of the political aisle." He is now required to post at least one from the left. Or, admit he made that up.

[tehdang]

*LOUD ANNOYING BUZZER*

It took Trump 48 hours to denounce literal torch-carrying Nazis after they murdered a human being.

Then the RNC, knowing this, changed their 2020 platform to "whatever Trump wants".

Thank you for your defense of the RNC, shame even the RNC does not believe you. Your protests might as well be a fart in a Chinese hurricane gun.

I also appreciate that you pointed out that some mass murderers weren't following Carlson, Trump, or other RNC white supremacy. Have you stopped to consider that, when your best defense is "there were other murderers too" that maybe you're on the wrong side?

Classic "but Trump" interjection. Put the buzzer back into your pocket, and respond to the post at hand.

Please name the rants he has that fall on the "left side of the political aisle." Because his manifesto screams anti-Black (racism is long a concern of conservatives, not progressives), and anti-Semiticism. Not a leftist policy in sight.

No less a progressive than Ibram X Kendi stated that present racism is the solution to past racism. Progressives are absolutely concerned with racism. I'm not going to give you that one.

He's anti-conservatism. Calls it corporatism in disguise. Major left-wing talking point.
Restates opposition to conservatism in conclusion. (mild aside that he accuses conservatives of not believing in the race, kinda problematic there). Conservatives only interested in profits and wealth of the 1%. You'd think he asked MMO-C leftists what their problems with conservatives were, and adopted them.
Calls himself left-wing.
Calls himself a socialist, is fine with worker ownership of the means of production.
left-wing criticism of crypto (literally quotes jacobin.)
Green nationalism is the only true nationalism. Environmental protection and preservation. Population growth is bad, threatens the Green future.

But do please respond to the post, not one sentence of the post. I may have conclude you agree with me, but need a little more explanation of his internet grab-bag of ideologies.

[Breccia]

Classic "but Trump" interjection.

Can't help but notice this isn't a denial, but in fact an admission you couldn't. Sorry, as long as Trump runs the RNC you cannot handwave him.

I would say "nice try" but it wasn't. Your efforts to defend the RNC have objectively failed, because not even you can defend your own defense. You admitted you can't.

No less a progressive than Ibram X Kendi stated that present racism is the solution to past racism.

Wow. Really? Someone drives to a 78% black neighborhood, shoots and murders 10 black people while screaming the N-word and that's what you go with? The guy called himself a white supremacist. You don't get to "but racism" here. The guy was a white supremacist. Please post on-topic.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh wait, missed something:

Calls himself left-wing.

Yeah I can call myself Godzilla, but unless I step on a building or breathe radioactive fire what matters are my actions.

Calls himself a socialist

And maybe if "both sides" involved a country where one side was socialist, you'd have had a point here.

It didn't.

You don't.

But do please respond to the post, not one sentence of the post.

Why? You're the one who made multiple claims you can't back up. You don't get to act indignant when someone points out you're lying or trolling when you're lying or trolling.

[tehdang]

Can't help but notice this isn't a denial, but in fact an admission you couldn't. Sorry, as long as Trump runs the RNC you cannot handwave him.

I would say "nice try" but it wasn't. Your efforts to defend the RNC have objectively failed, because not even you can defend your own defense. You admitted you can't.

Save your Trump diatribes for a Trump topic.

Wow. Really? Someone drives to a 78% black neighborhood, shoots and murders 10 black people while screaming the N-word and that's what you go with? The guy called himself a white supremacist. You don't get to "but racism" here. The guy was a white supremacist. Please post on-topic.

Read the context of somehow racism is a conservative concern.

Yeah I can call myself Godzilla, but unless I step on a building or breathe radioactive fire what matters are my actions.

Self identifies as a leftist and goes on to critique leftists as a leftist. Where leftists go wrong.

[Breccia]

Save your Trump diatribes for a Trump topic.

You probably shouldn't have brought up the RNC if you weren't ready to bring Trump into it. This is on you.

EDIT: Actually, when you were trying to defend the RNC as not racist, and I pointed out how Nazi-defending Trump led it, did you honestly say "Don't bring Trump into it"? That's like talking about murder "but don't bring guns into it". Which, incidentally, is also an RNC thing.

Still haven't seen anything other than intentional lack of defense. "But someone else said racism!" doesn't defend a white supremacist who murdered 10 black people. Please post constructively.

[beanman12345]

Oh he's concluded people agree with him after my post. Lol