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

[TEHPALLYTANK]

I don't watch Fox News but what I've seen from his clips he doesn't seem racist. He seems very far conservative is all and a bit ignorant there. Are you confusing him with Sean Hannity because he is a racist.

Here are some clips where Tucker does seem very racist and sexist. Skip to 3:20 if you aren't interested in how he got started on cable news and his journey from CNN to MSNBC to Fox. Skip to 5:00 for the start of his on-air bigotry on Fox News.



If Tucker still doesn't seem racist to you after all of that...I don't know what to say.

[Endus]

Here are some clips where Tucker does seem very racist and sexist. Skip to 3:20 if you aren't interested in how he got started on cable news and his journey from CNN to MSNBC to Fox. Skip to 5:00 for the start of his on-air bigotry on Fox News.


If Tucker still doesn't seem racist to you after all of that...I don't know what to say.

The simple truth is that Tucker Carlson doesn't seem racist . . . to other racists.

It really doesn't get that much more complex. His racist bullshit just comes off as totally normal stuff if you're racist, too.

[Smitzelplix]

Eh, that's just Carlson repeating the original white supremacist rhetoric with only the slightest of sanitization. I mean, he deleted all the racial slurs at least.

These ideas might not have originated with Tucker but he's definitely one of the latest people to be pushing it and he is one of the most viewed cable news personalities and the shooter most likely got these ideas from Tucker since his content is so easily accessible.

[Paranoid Android]

The psychology of the Right. They cry victim enough. Have the audience viewers, generally white majority America and where people like Tucker and can literally spew white supremacist talking points and our public has to give these racists credence on a major news network, carried by every cable and internet company. Pretty sweet deal they have.

[Poopymonster]

The psychology of the Right. They cry victim enough. Have the audience viewers, generally white majority America and where people like Tucker and can literally spew white supremacist talking points and our public has to give these racists credence on a major news network, carried by every cable and internet company. Pretty sweet deal they have.

And when their Lone Wolf snaps and kills a bunch of people, it just reduced the opposing parties voters.

[eschatological]

Well, now we see what the right's whinging about this event is. Conservatives, as coordinated as ever, got Waukesha trending. If you recall, a black man drove through a parade and killed 6 white people. All the usual suspects, Candace Owens, Jack Posobiec, etc, are lamenting that the "media" won't cover the "black supremacist who killed white people" and are instead focusing on this "mentally ill" white supremacist driving 3.5 hours to a black neighborhood to kill my neighbors.

Of course, they suffer from massive problems of......well, being fucking liars.

We know this is a case of white supremacy because the dude wrote a nearly 200 page manifesto.

In the Waukesha case, iirc, the dude was fleeing police on an DV arrest and......well, didn't stop for a parade, killing 6 people. There was no indications of racial animus in the event itself. I'm not sure if they ever looked into his background and declared him a "black supremacist." But that doesn't matter to these chucklefucks.

[s_bushido]

I'm not sure if they ever looked into his background and declared him a "black supremacist." But that doesn't matter to these chucklefucks.

I want to say that back when it happened, I remember there being the typical "he had BLM stuff on his social media" justification for the talking point conservative racists were using. But it shouldn't be surprising to anyone that they'll dig up a black criminal to highlight whenever a white guy drives 3 hours out of his way to murder black people after posting a manifesto that reads explicitly like the shit Fucker Carlson says every night to millions of viewers. Anything to distract from reality.

[Breccia]

Of course, they suffer from massive problems of......well, being fucking liars.

Hey, just because someone responds to the NYTimes in-depth investigation with a no-evidence personal anecdote doesn't make them a liar. It just means their opinion is heavily outclassed and outweighted, even if they weren't intentionally lying or trolling.

Oh, you mean in general. My bad, please continue.

[eillas]

I don't watch Fox News but what I've seen from his clips he doesn't seem racist. He seems very far conservative is all and a bit ignorant there. Are you confusing him with Sean Hannity because he is a racist.

Tucker engages with the white replacement conspiracy theory and sees diversity as a weakness. That diversity is a threat to our country. He said immigrants made our country poorer, dirtier, and more divided.
He also got eerily close to the 14 words by saying we have to fight to preserve our nation's culture and heritage. Called Iraq as being filled with semi-literate primitive monkeys. Said that their culture doesn't use toilet paper or forks.
David duke praised his show for getting its message out.

The Daily Stormer a Neo Nazi website has some authors watch his show twice, one to watch and the second to take notes on.

Neo nazis love tucker carlson and see him as how they get their message across a broader audience

[tehdang]

Well, now we see what the right's whinging about this event is. Conservatives, as coordinated as ever, got Waukesha trending. If you recall, a black man drove through a parade and killed 6 white people. All the usual suspects, Candace Owens, Jack Posobiec, etc, are lamenting that the "media" won't cover the "black supremacist who killed white people" and are instead focusing on this "mentally ill" white supremacist driving 3.5 hours to a black neighborhood to kill my neighbors.

Of course, they suffer from massive problems of......well, being fucking liars.

We know this is a case of white supremacy because the dude wrote a nearly 200 page manifesto.

In the Waukesha case, iirc, the dude was fleeing police on an DV arrest and......well, didn't stop for a parade, killing 6 people. There was no indications of racial animus in the event itself. I'm not sure if they ever looked into his background and declared him a "black supremacist." But that doesn't matter to these chucklefucks.

The only reason Waukesha got play, and was exploited by the usual creatures, was because of the man's social media history. He called for violence against White People on social media. He plowed his car into exclusively white people. The media was particularly loathsome in their coverage at the time (hell, Twitter did a similarly stupid redux today on "a car drove through a Christmas parade"). It doesn't really deserve revisiting in this instance, since the differences are so stark.

Moving on. People immediately blamed Tucker Carlson for the violence. It was trending alongside Buffalo. As you said, he published a 200 page manifesto, so this should be easy. All kinds of far-right internet sources, and the radicalization that happens online, and only mentioning Fox once. It's an image pointing out Jews working for the company. Curious, that, attacking Fox in the manifesto. He claims membership in the moderate authoritarian left political compass. He rejects Christianity. He promotes green nationalism. This is not the Tucker Carlson home crew. But people want to make it about Tucker and Fox News, and lo and behold, empower their intellectual equals to do the same junk at longer distance. It's just about shoving square pegs into round holes with enough rhetorical violence. I suggest stop mainstreaming and normalizing shooters in ways that make countering their ideology harder (i.e. he's just like people questioning border policies leading to millions in illegal immigration, and why it continues). And by all means, decry white supremacist violence in America. And wonder why he appeared on law enforcement radar prior to the event and escaped notice afterwards.

I'm not sure where you are on assigning blame for terrorists to political party and/or partisan opinion hosts.

[Endus]

I'm not sure where you are on assigning blame for terrorists to political party and/or partisan opinion hosts.

When said political figures or partisan opinion hosts are pushing the same violent rhetoric that inspired the attack.

We're not trying to paint the Mona Lisa. There's two dots, labeled 1 and 2, and we're connecting them. It's not nearly as complicated as you're making it out to be.

[unfilteredJW]

Imagine defending Tucker.

[Elegiac]

When said political figures or partisan opinion hosts are pushing the same violent rhetoric that inspired the attack.

We're not trying to paint the Mona Lisa. There's two dots, labeled 1 and 2, and we're connecting them. It's not nearly as complicated as you're making it out to be.

Tucker Carlson: "When confronted or pressed for details, [proponents of diversity] retreat into a familiar platitude, which they repeat like a zen koan: diversity is our strength. But is diversity our strength? The less we have in common, the stronger we are? Is that true of families? Is it true in neighborhoods or businesses? Of course not. Then why is it true of America? Nobody knows. Nobody's even allowed to ask the question."

Tucker Carlson, again: "How precisely is diversity our strength. Since you've made this our new national motto, please be specific as you explain it. Can you think, for example, of other institutions such as, I don't know, marriage or military units, in which the less people have in common the more cohesive they are? Do you get along better with your neighbors or your coworkers if you can't understand each other or share no common values?"

Buffalo Shooter: "Why is diversity said to be our greatest strength? Does anyone even ask why? It is spoken like a mantra and repeated ad infinitum "diversity is our greatest strength, diversity is our greatest strength, diversity is our greatest strength...". Said throughout the media, spoken by politicians, educators and celebrities. But no one ever seems to give a reason why. What gives a nation strength? And how does diversity increase that strength. What part of diversity causes this increase in strength? No one can give an answer."

"But he didn't cite Carlson specifically so he can't have been influenced by his repeated pushing of replacement theory" is such a braindead take because if the shooter's manifesto was submitted as an academic paper without citing Carlson, it'd be flagged for plagiarism.

Moreover, there's a distinct lack of parity because there are absolutely zero (0) mainstream media sources equivalent to Fox or even Newsmax or OANN pushing "anti-white" garbage inspiring a similar trend of anti-white violence. But it's tehdang so go figure that they'd take the most dishonest position possible.

[Jastall]

The only reason Waukesha got play, and was exploited by the usual creatures, was because of the man's social media history. He called for violence against White People on social media. He plowed his car into exclusively white people. The media was particularly loathsome in their coverage at the time (hell, Twitter did a similarly stupid redux today on "a car drove through a Christmas parade"). It doesn't really deserve revisiting in this instance, since the differences are so stark.

Moving on. People immediately blamed Tucker Carlson for the violence. It was trending alongside Buffalo. As you said, he published a 200 page manifesto, so this should be easy. All kinds of far-right internet sources, and the radicalization that happens online, and only mentioning Fox once. It's an image pointing out Jews working for the company. Curious, that, attacking Fox in the manifesto. He claims membership in the moderate authoritarian left political compass. He rejects Christianity. He promotes green nationalism. This is not the Tucker Carlson home crew. But people want to make it about Tucker and Fox News, and lo and behold, empower their intellectual equals to do the same junk at longer distance. It's just about shoving square pegs into round holes with enough rhetorical violence. I suggest stop mainstreaming and normalizing shooters in ways that make countering their ideology harder (i.e. he's just like people questioning border policies leading to millions in illegal immigration, and why it continues). And by all means, decry white supremacist violence in America. And wonder why he appeared on law enforcement radar prior to the event and escaped notice afterwards.

I'm not sure where you are on assigning blame for terrorists to political party and/or partisan opinion hosts.

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.

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.

[eschatological]

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.

[Ivanstone]

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.

For the longest time in the US it was possible to be left wing on economic stuff and be a social conservative on everything else. Most people hate big business in general. I don't think the Dixiecrats ever went away. They've just been wooed by the GOP because their social issues are more important than economic ones. Trump was elected on being an "outsider" who stood with the "average" American. Hell Tucker had his little rant against unfettered economic growth as well.

[eschatological]

For the longest time in the US it was possible to be left wing on economic stuff and be a social conservative on everything else. Most people hate big business in general. I don't think the Dixiecrats ever went away. They've just been wooed by the GOP because their social issues are more important than economic ones. Trump was elected on being an "outsider" who stood with the "average" American. Hell Tucker had his little rant against unfettered economic growth as well.

Now that's an interesting query. There's lots of evidence in 2016 that union members voted heavily for Trump.

The issue to me, of course, is that progressives (and leftists) have consistently and regularly been the most pro-union faction in the U.S., but people seem to forget that. When NAFTA passed, it was 100% of the GOP that backed it, and Third Way, centrist Dems, who've since spent the last 30 years molding the Democratic party into a corporate, centrist party. It's progressives who voted against it. The difference is anti-corporate rightwingers seem to also dislike unions as another form of cronyism (whether true or not), or, if they're particularly conspiratorial, "in league" with elites to keep them down. I've heard a lot of right wing rhetoric like that against teachers' unions, for example, and the fight against CRT in classrooms/LGBTQ+ affirming school curriculums started in anti-teacher's union rhetoric.

I'm just not sure that "heavily anti-corporate but also heavily racist and homophobic" can be reasonably seen as "leftist." Maybe that's what he means by "authoritarian communist" but if he's a traditional right wing anti-corporate thug, he falls more in the Rand Paul right wing libertarian faction more than anything else.

[Trifle]

Tucker Carlson, again: "How precisely is diversity our strength. Since you've made this our new national motto, please be specific as you explain it. Can you think, for example, of other institutions such as, I don't know, marriage or military units, in which the less people have in common the more cohesive they are? Do you get along better with your neighbors or your coworkers if you can't understand each other or share no common values?"

Marriage seems a really poor choice of example on his part for this argument. He seems to be implying that marriage works better without diversity, ie. gay marriage is superior to straight marriage.

[Ivanstone]

Now that's an interesting query. There's lots of evidence in 2016 that union members voted heavily for Trump.

The issue to me, of course, is that progressives (and leftists) have consistently and regularly been the most pro-union faction in the U.S., but people seem to forget that. When NAFTA passed, it was 100% of the GOP that backed it, and Third Way, centrist Dems, who've since spent the last 30 years molding the Democratic party into a corporate, centrist party. It's progressives who voted against it. The difference is anti-corporate rightwingers seem to also dislike unions as another form of cronyism (whether true or not), or, if they're particularly conspiratorial, "in league" with elites to keep them down. I've heard a lot of right wing rhetoric like that against teachers' unions, for example, and the fight against CRT in classrooms/LGBTQ+ affirming school curriculums started in anti-teacher's union rhetoric.

I'm just not sure that "heavily anti-corporate but also heavily racist and homophobic" can be reasonably seen as "leftist." Maybe that's what he means by "authoritarian communist" but if he's a traditional right wing anti-corporate thug, he falls more in the Rand Paul right wing libertarian faction more than anything else.

What does the GOP say they stand for? Hard working small businessmen. People who built their fortunes. That's why they take a stand against job killing regulations. They hurt small business. Trump is a hardworking business genius after all.

Banks and Hollywood? Controlled by Jews and they hire black people and gay people to corrupt our children. Its filthy big business.

Unions? They used to be cool when you could be assured that only a certain kind of people could join the union. Now they've been corrupted by Soros. And Obummer.

Sometimes people have mixed beliefs. Generally I think social conservatives are repellent regardless of what their other beliefs are. I don't know if Payton Gendron has any sensible economic beliefs or opinions on governance. They're irrelevant in the face of his social conservatism. His social conservatism is the driving force in his life.

[Endus]

For the longest time in the US it was possible to be left wing on economic stuff and be a social conservative on everything else.

"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.