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

[Breccia]

you'd know that white replacement has been cited in news articles and Democratic party politics as a good thing politically.

Then it would be trivial for you to cite at least one of each.

By the way, I don't think you'll find anything remotely official. But you go ahead, one elected Democrat publicly citing white replacement as a good thing, and one major news source, almost certainly an OP ED which, heh, I'll let you count as a news article because I'm feeling generous.

But I will point out that this is the third claim you've made in six hours that, when challenged, you deflected or refused to answer. Like that time you tried to say the white supremacist who drove to a black neighborhood to murder black people while screaming the N-word, was a leftist policy, because some other guy mentioned racism one time. That's a formal public admission of "I have no defense" of the shooter, who was following Carlson's white replacement policy you are now claiming is Democrats.

Go on. One elected Democrat official, one major news source article -- even an OP ED. You made the claim, you back it up.

[Mihalik]

tehdang gone full yikes.

He was always full yikes.

[unfilteredJW]

He was always full yikes.

Right. Just getting to Spinal Tap levels of adding another notch to the dial.

[Mihalik]

Go on. One elected Democrat official, one major news source article -- even an OP ED. You made the claim, you back it up.

What usually happens is that there's some statistic or article speech or something where they go like "US becoming more diverse and that is a good thing", then the brownshirts and the hwhites with "economic concerns" take that and run with it to "Look! The Dems want to exterminatus the hwhite race!".

[Breccia]

What usually happens is that there's some statistic or article speech or something where they go like "US becoming more diverse and that is a good thing", then the brownshirts and the hwhites with "economic concerns" take that and run with it to "Look! The Dems want to exterminatus the hwhite race!".

Well then it's a good thing @tehdang is such a genuine poster and crtiical thinker that he'd never do that. He'd post something that's exactly what he says it is -- a Democrat actually saying white replacement is good. He would neeeeeeeeeeeeeever attempt to back down on things he actually wrote by moving the goalposts, no siree.

Just you wait. Backing for his claims will be here any minute.

[UnifiedDivide]

Given the discussion, I guess I can paste these here.

Tucker Carlson tries to distance himself and Fox News from the Buffalo shooter, who was inspired by racist conspiracy theories Carlson has pushed on his show

The most fascist lie of all the fascist lies Carlson is telling is that the document by the killer is not political. As an historian of fascism, I think it is 100% fascist!

[tehdang]

I'm afraid my last post was infracted, and while I do enjoy hearty arguments on these subjects, I do think the subject of associating conventional right-wing political personalities with white supremacist shooters borders on trolling and baiting at its core. Passions are high. Certain otherizing of disfavored groups, and refusal to come to grips with the scope and magnitude of assertions are somewhat expected. I don't think responses and full consideration of the content of posts favors a future free and open conversation. It's with regrets that I have to suspend this line of thought for now, but perhaps in the future it can be resumed, with some guardrails. Any disagreements can be made in PM.

The sadness is that it matters to politics as it's a subject of current Democratic party pushes on censorship, not to mention hoping for political gains by smearing political opponents with the evil that was perpetrated.

[unfilteredJW]

I'm afraid my last post was infracted, and while I do enjoy hearty arguments on these subjects, I do think the subject of associating conventional right-wing political personalities with white supremacist shooters borders on trolling and baiting at its core. Passions are high. Certain otherizing of disfavored groups, and refusal to come to grips with the scope and magnitude of assertions are somewhat expected. I don't think responses and full consideration of the content of posts favors a future free and open conversation. It's with regrets that I have to suspend this line of thought for now, but perhaps in the future it can be resumed, with some guardrails. Any disagreements can be made in PM.

The sadness is that it matters to politics as it's a subject of current Democratic party pushes on censorship, not to mention hoping for political gains by smearing political opponents with the evil that was perpetrated.

Fucking hysterical.

Conservative victimhood in the face of being shown just how awful it is is a core to the platform.

[Endus]

I'm afraid my last post was infracted, and while I do enjoy hearty arguments on these subjects, I do think the subject of associating conventional right-wing political personalities with white supremacist shooters borders on trolling and baiting at its core.

Not when those "conventional right-wing political personalities" are pushing the exact same rhetoric that inspired the shooter.

There's a legal term for that.

It's called "incitement".

What Tucker Carlson's been doing is pretty easily comparable to, say, what Charles Manson did with his followers; he identified targets and laid out the justification for the use of violence against them, and then kept his hands clean while his followers took action on his behalf. He worked the same defense at court you are trying to make for these figures, and Manson's arguments failed.

The chief difference is that Manson was speaking to 100 closely connected people, whereas Tucker Carlson talks to millions of disconnected people. Which, really, isn't that meaningful a distinction; it's a semantic detail in the kind of incitement and stochastic terrorism, not an argument that one should be allowed to continue without legal consequence.

Certain otherizing of disfavored groups, and refusal to come to grips with the scope and magnitude of assertions are somewhat expected.

The only people being "othered" here by the rest of us are violent bigots who either are actively, or support (whether passively or actively) the attacking of innocent people. Every single pro-lifer, for instance, supports violence against women. Every single last one of them. You can't tear away women's basic human rights without that action being violence.

And the "othering" is just a recognition of exactly what those abusive, sadistic assholes are actually doing or supporting being done. That's it. Just clarity on the facts.

You're projecting the malice of those in those groups. Not making an actual case based on reality.

I don't think responses and full consideration of the content of posts favors a future free and open conversation

Good. No one wants an "open conversation" with people who support violent white supremacist terrorism and mass murders. Your views are execrable and violent and abusive and cruel, for no purpose but that violent cruelty.

Nobody wants a "conversation" with people like that, because they're not people anyone wants anything to do with. And you're not entitled to any conversation. At all. With anyone.

It's with regrets that I have to suspend this line of thought for now, but perhaps in the future it can be resumed, with some guardrails. Any disagreements can be made in PM.

Or I can take you to task for this abominable misrepresentation of the truth right here in public, thanks. I've got nothing to hide.

The sadness is that it matters to politics as it's a subject of current Democratic party pushes on censorship, not to mention hoping for political gains by smearing political opponents with the evil that was perpetrated.

There we go, evil "censorship" bullshit, again. Again; if you don't support child pornography being openly displayed in public and broadcast to everyone, including children, then you too support "censorship" and know why your own argument is dishonest.

As for the "smearing"; it's not a smear if it's the truth. If you're a white supremacist and/or white nationalist (a Venn diagram that's a circle, if we're honest), then you're supportive of this kind of evil. You're why this kind of thing happens. Your politics, your ideology, your worldview.

And that is an argument that applies to nearly all Republican leaders today, and a lot of talking heads like, very blatantly, Tucker Carlson.

But hey, if you won't take it from me or anyone else on my "side", because of blind partisanship, how about Liz Cheney? https://twitter.com/Liz_Cheney/statu...59124840558592

You're not the victim, here. You said a lot of truly awful things and need to take some personal responsibility for that abusive conduct towards other posters here.

[Edge-]

I do think the subject of associating conventional right-wing political personalities with white supremacist shooters borders on trolling and baiting at its core.

Yeah man, except when those political personalities are literally repeating the same rhetoric from extreme-right ring circles to the largest TV audience, while consistently lying (like outright, abject lies without any attempt to fact-check using internal Fox resources that exist, and that had previously been telling their teams when they were pulling material sourced from neo-nazi boards which was ignored by said team) and framing everything in apocalyptic, combative terms.

Then we can look at the mirroring language and say that, while maybe Tucker Carlson, for example, wasn't the inspiration for said shooters: They're both drawing from a lot of the same "intellectual" wells.

Passions are high.

Generally happens at the point where we have difficulty keeping count of the number of avoidable mass-shootings in this country, especially when more than one have stemmed from a particular political ideology.

The sadness is that it matters to politics as it's a subject of current Democratic party pushes on censorship

Are you trying to tie violating the rules and getting a slap on the wrist in these forums to "Democratic censorship"? For reals?

not to mention hoping for political gains by smearing political opponents with the evil that was perpetrated.

This thread was started about series of articles posted before the mass shooting. We're just connecting the obvious dots to tie it to a current event.

No amount of polite phrasing changes what your fundamental arguments are.

[Vegas82]

This thread was started about series of articles posted before the mass shooting. We're just connecting the obvious dots to tie it to a current event.

No amount of polite phrasing changes what your fundamental arguments are.

When a racist like the Buffalo shooter paraphrases Tucker’s monologues it’s not so much connecting dots as calling the sky blue.

[Edge-]

When a racist like the Buffalo shooter paraphrases Tucker’s monologues it’s not so much connecting dots as calling the sky blue.

I'll argue whether or not he heard of this stuff on Tucker. It's very likely he did. But it's also likely he heard about the "great replacement" conspiracy theory on neo-nazi boards or far-right telegram chats.

I'm trying to say it doesn't matter. Tucker Carlson and a racist neo-nazi are repeating the exact same rhetoric at the end of the day.

Which I guess for some folks is still difficult to connect those two dots, even when it's come with a TLDR and an extensive guide on how to connect two dots based on hundreds of previous examples of connecting two dots.

[tehdang]

Generally happens at the point where we have difficulty keeping count of the number of avoidable mass-shootings in this country, especially when more than one have stemmed from a particular political ideology.

Thanks for the confirmation.

Are you trying to tie violating the rules and getting a slap on the wrist in these forums to "Democratic censorship"? For reals?

"Democratic party" as in why I think it still deserves discussion at some point.

We're just connecting the obvious dots to tie it to a current event.

I'm aware of what you're all claiming to do. My disagreements were stated and can be re-read at any time, as is my post explaining my reasons for suspending it now.

[NED funded]

I'm afraid my last post was infracted, and while I do enjoy hearty arguments on these subjects, I do think the subject of associating conventional right-wing political personalities with white supremacist shooters borders on trolling and baiting at its core. Passions are high. Certain otherizing of disfavored groups, and refusal to come to grips with the scope and magnitude of assertions are somewhat expected. I don't think responses and full consideration of the content of posts favors a future free and open conversation. It's with regrets that I have to suspend this line of thought for now, but perhaps in the future it can be resumed, with some guardrails. Any disagreements can be made in PM.

The sadness is that it matters to politics as it's a subject of current Democratic party pushes on censorship, not to mention hoping for political gains by smearing political opponents with the evil that was perpetrated.

Republicans are kind of open about their allegiances. MGT is open she fully supports the Q movement and people like her are the ones getting elected.

That being said, I kind of agree with you. Democrats don't really push for dangerous ideas like at a leadership level but you can see exactly what type of policies and stuff they are pursuing. Remember defund the police? That entire campaign was really stupid and resulted in an increase in crime that still persists and now their proponents ,entirely unaware of the implications of what they actually proposed, were forced to roll it back

Which kinda sours me on a lot of the progressive movement. They are so incredibly wealthy that they don't really put a second thought on the policies they push (which don't really affect them) and have to be forced to roll it back when the consequences inevitably hit. When you live in a rich neighborhood that doesn't have any crime as is you don't really care if the police check on you since you are already paying for private security lol

There are a bunch of similar policies you can pin point but the whole defund the police one is funny and sad to me.

[Endus]

Thanks for the confirmation.

Funny how a mass murder of innocents by a white supremacist might get people a little emotional.

It's almost like the rest of us have something called "basic human empathy".

"Democratic party" as in why I think it still deserves discussion at some point.

It doesn't The bleating about "censorship" from the same folks who lost their collective shits about the Dixie Chicks daring to say they didn't like Bush, or Kathy Griffin doing a gross photoshoot, is just obvious bad-faith garbage.

Everyone supports censorship. Literally everyone.

You just don't want violent white supremacists to be censored; to have their messages of white supremacy and encouraging further violence shut down so that further innocents might not face future attacks.

That's what you're opposing the censorship of. Not censorship as a concept. Because, I repeat; everyone supports censorship.

I'm aware of what you're all claiming to do. My disagreements were stated and can be re-read at any time, as is my post explaining my reasons for suspending it now.

Your "reasons" were bad-faith if not outright dishonest equivocations. They don't hold up. You're lying, and we know you're lying, and we've demonstrated that to everyone else following along already.

- - - Updated - - -

That being said, I kind of agree with you. Democrats don't really push for dangerous ideas like at a leadership level but you can see exactly what type of policies and stuff they are pursuing. Remember defund the police? That entire campaign was really stupid and resulted in an increase in crime that still persists and now their proponents ,entirely unaware of the implications of what they actually proposed, were forced to roll it back

There's literally no correlation, there. Crime rates have shifted regardless of whether a particular municipality engaged in any "defunding" of police, because there isn't a correlation between the two. Stop pushing blatant disinformation.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ay/9054639002/
https://www.motherjones.com/crime-ju...ng-the-police/
https://www.salon.com/2021/02/01/did...certainly-not/

Don't parrot counterfactual propaganda bullshit and pretend you're a moderate.

[NED funded]

There's literally no correlation, there. Crime rates have shifted regardless of whether a particular municipality engaged in any "defunding" of police, because there isn't a correlation between the two. Stop pushing blatant disinformation.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ay/9054639002/
https://www.motherjones.com/crime-ju...ng-the-police/
https://www.salon.com/2021/02/01/did...certainly-not/

Don't parrot counterfactual propaganda bullshit and pretend you're a moderate.

This is not blatant disinformation. This is literally the self admitted failure of the mayors of those cities that have now been forced to reinstitute those budgets

Defund the police was the extremist movement. It wasn't pushed by mainstream democrats who just sat quietly while they let it happen and in fact they pushed back against it on the national level. Sorry but if you support defund the police you are the extremist and unhinged individual.

[unfilteredJW]

This is not blatant disinformation. This is literally the self admitted failure of the mayors of those cities that have now been forced to reinstitute those budgets

Defund the police was the extremist movement. It wasn't pushed by mainstream democrats who just sat quietly while they let it happen and in fact they pushed back against it on the national level. Sorry but if you support defund the police you are the extremist and unhinged individual.

Should be easy for you to provide examples then.

[Breccia]

"Democratic party" as in--

*ahem*

It's with regrets that I have to suspend this line of thought for now, but perhaps in the future it can be resumed, with some guardrails.

By the way, you're the only one tying a man quoting Carlson, driving to a black neighborhood, firing wildly into the crowd yelling the N-word with the Democratic party.

For which, despite being challenged on multiple fronts, you have not yet once even attempted to defend. You said some other guy said racism some other time. That's not a defense.

There is a much easier way to not defend something, then to publicly and repeatedly announce you have no defense. It's to simply not bother trying. Your "both sides" argument has failed in every single way. Give up.

- - - Updated - - -

Sorry but if you support defund the police you are the extremist and unhinged individual.

Hmm, I'm having trouble remembering, was the "defund the police" movement a call to completely defund all police departments in all places for no reason? Or was it something more targeted, something more specific?

Maybe you remember? Be honest. If you can't remember, maybe you shouldn't use it as a talking point?

[Endus]

This is not blatant disinformation. This is literally the self admitted failure of the mayors of those cities that have now been forced to reinstitute those budgets

That's a lie.

The point made there is that there is no correlation whatsover between any defund the police programs and any increase in crime rates.

You claimed there was, and there is no such correlation. That's a very fundamental lie about some very basic facts.

Defund the police was the extremist movement.

Ironically, thinking Defund the Police was "extremist" is, itself, an extremist view.

It's literally just the idea that police departments have had too many additional responsibilities added onto their docket, like mental health calls and social work, and those responsibilities should be handed back off to professionals in fields better associated with said issues, and leaving police to handle criminal justice duties alone.

If you think that's "extremist", then you're the extremist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defund_the_police
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgo...it-have-merit/
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/how-w...lice-debunked/


So again; you're just lying about basic facts, to push an extremist disinformation campaign.

[Dontrike]

I'm afraid my last post was infracted, and while I do enjoy hearty arguments on these subjects, I do think the subject of associating conventional right-wing political personalities with white supremacist shooters borders on trolling and baiting at its core.

"Conservatism and white supremacists have no connections whatsoever" Are you kidding? What reality do you live in? You living in your own little world would be the only explanation to not understand right wing terrorism happens far more often than any other in America and that it links back heavily to Republicans and their rhetoric. It's astonishing how much you're willing to ignore.

- - - Updated - - -

Remember defund the police? That entire campaign was really stupid and resulted in an increase in crime that still persists and now their proponents ,entirely unaware of the implications of what they actually proposed, were forced to roll it back

The thing that didn't really happen somehow increased crime?