• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Tucker Bleeding Advertisers

Fletch said:
It was nice of CNN to put this guy on to blast CNNs competition. And what are these 'white nationalist talking points' that this guy referred to? Oh thats right, he wasnt asked. I watch Tucker. He is not a white nationalist. LIberals simply lie and claim that he is because that is what liberals do.
Click to expand...
The bolded, I don't know. But I find it disturbing that many White Nationalists seem to support and follow Trump & Fox. I do not recall this occurring with Obama.
 
Chomsky said:
I hope you know what you're opining about here, because I surely don't. But I clearly heard Black's claims, and haven't seen any evidence presented to the contrary.
Click to expand...

I've pulled more than one person out of white nationalism, and believe me, the media would never lend anyone a helping hand out if they couldn't spin a narrative that benefited themselves. They would dox them and smear them and tacitly promote vigilante violence against them no matter how stridently they recanted. It's really frustrating, because our media response to perceived 'white nationalism' is actually feeding the very echo chambers which radicalize people. They seem to think that if they get a kid who makes off-color gay jokes kicked off Twitter then he's just gone; out of sight, out of mind. No, he falls deeper down the cracks, and who is he talking to now? He's talking to the four guys who were posting about how much they admire Hitler who were also kicked off, and now that edgy kid is much more receptive to peer pressure and much harder for moderates to reach and engage with. And this sort of ideology is appealing because they mix truth with falsehood. They criticize banking, they criticize corporate power, they criticize warmongering, and it's interspersed with anti-Semitism, racial hatred, and violent rhetoric. Since the media are large corporations, whose entire business model revolves around selling access to your eyeballs to other corporations in the form of advertisements, they don't want to take some kid who renounced racism, lionize him, and then have him accurately criticize them and their biggest customers. So they always demand a full recanting of the economic positions of the far right, and they always use any history of racism to smear people who do level criticism at them from an economic standpoint. They aren't the least bit concerned with actually fighting racism, they just see anti-racism as another tool in their arsenal, which they employ sustain the profitability of their business model. How would you see any evidence to the contrary, if you have no experience with this particular ideological corner of the internet?
 
$1000 said:
I've pulled more than one person out of white nationalism, and believe me, the media would never lend anyone a helping hand out if they couldn't spin a narrative that benefited themselves. They would dox them and smear them and tacitly promote vigilante violence against them no matter how stridently they recanted. It's really frustrating, because our media response to perceived 'white nationalism' is actually feeding the very echo chambers which radicalize people. They seem to think that if they get a kid who makes off-color gay jokes kicked off Twitter then he's just gone; out of sight, out of mind. No, he falls deeper down the cracks, and who is he talking to now? He's talking to the four guys who were posting about how much they admire Hitler who were also kicked off, and now that edgy kid is much more receptive to peer pressure and much harder for moderates to reach and engage with. And this sort of ideology is appealing because they mix truth with falsehood. They criticize banking, they criticize corporate power, they criticize warmongering, and it's interspersed with anti-Semitism, racial hatred, and violent rhetoric. Since the media are large corporations, whose entire business model revolves around selling access to your eyeballs to other corporations in the form of advertisements, they don't want to take some kid who renounced racism, lionize him, and then have him accurately criticize them and their biggest customers. So they always demand a full recanting of the economic positions of the far right, and they always use any history of racism to smear people who do level criticism at them from an economic standpoint. They aren't the least bit concerned with actually fighting racism, they just see anti-racism as another tool in their arsenal, which they employ sustain the profitability of their business model. How would you see any evidence to the contrary, if you have no experience with this particular ideological corner of the internet?
Click to expand...
Thanks for your reply.

Well! I had no idea what to make of your previous reply, though I do find this one more understandable & cogent (IMHO), but still filled with claimed generalities rather than specific evidence pertaining to the specific subject directly at hand, that being Black's comment to Van Jones.

Ordinarily I'd dismiss a post speaking to generalities, rather than it offering specific evidence. But like I said I find it an interesting post, and I also found some of your other posts I've stumbled across to be interesting - too. Also, I have no reason at this point to dispute your claim of your "pulling" some individuals out of White Nationalism, so I'll just give you kudos there.

But as to the immediate subject at hand, unfortunately I haven't seen you provide any evidence that Black is lying here. I will say that I appreciate you sharing your opinion and insight, though.

I'd also like to comment on your claim that the media would attack a removed or recanted White Nationalist, unless they allow the media to manipulate them. I think there's some truth in much of the media being manipulative, but I'm not sure it's as strictly bi-modal as you portray. I suspect there's a lot of action in the middle, and it's not all either one way or the other. I'm speaking of the mainstream media here. Once we get to the non-MSM blogs and social media, I must admit it becomes the Wild West!
 
$1000 said:
I think the withdrawal of corporate sponsorship has more to do with Carlson being one of the only people on the right with a large following willing to vociferously criticize corporate capitalism. They're using the social justice outrage-du-jour as an excuse, and the tribalistic left is being suckered into (once again) cheering on multinational conglomerates as some sort of underdog hero fighting the big, bad Tucker Carlson and his audience of poor rural Americans (who we all know hold all the power in this country /s).

Tucker supports one of Bernie's policy and shines a light on corporate greed:


Calls Republicans stooges for war profiteers and bankers and criticizes both Republicans and Democrats for selling out the country, criticizes the 'big government is the only cause of poverty' line:




Notice what he said right before that. That the leader has to be a Republican because there's no option on the other side of the aisle. People called this a 'crypto-fascist rant' and a way to shill for the Trump wing of the Republican Party, but he's obviously willing to support leaders on the left who are anti-corporate. In the first video he supported Bernie's policy, and here he supports Yang, whose platform is very socially liberal and includes amnesty.



It's obvious to me that Tucker is sincere and effective, which is why he's being targetted.
Click to expand...


Sincere and effective conservative on the airwaves is all it takes for MediaMatters to gin up their attack smear machine against someone.
 
Fletch said:
It was nice of CNN to put this guy on to blast CNNs competition. And what are these 'white nationalist talking points' that this guy referred to? Oh thats right, he wasnt asked. I watch Tucker. He is not a white nationalist. LIberals simply lie and claim that he is because that is what liberals do.
Click to expand...

I watch Tucker also, and he most certainly is not.
 
$1000 said:
I've pulled more than one person out of white nationalism, and believe me, the media would never lend anyone a helping hand out if they couldn't spin a narrative that benefited themselves. They would dox them and smear them and tacitly promote vigilante violence against them no matter how stridently they recanted. It's really frustrating, because our media response to perceived 'white nationalism' is actually feeding the very echo chambers which radicalize people. They seem to think that if they get a kid who makes off-color gay jokes kicked off Twitter then he's just gone; out of sight, out of mind. No, he falls deeper down the cracks, and who is he talking to now? He's talking to the four guys who were posting about how much they admire Hitler who were also kicked off, and now that edgy kid is much more receptive to peer pressure and much harder for moderates to reach and engage with. And this sort of ideology is appealing because they mix truth with falsehood. They criticize banking, they criticize corporate power, they criticize warmongering, and it's interspersed with anti-Semitism, racial hatred, and violent rhetoric. Since the media are large corporations, whose entire business model revolves around selling access to your eyeballs to other corporations in the form of advertisements, they don't want to take some kid who renounced racism, lionize him, and then have him accurately criticize them and their biggest customers. So they always demand a full recanting of the economic positions of the far right, and they always use any history of racism to smear people who do level criticism at them from an economic standpoint. They aren't the least bit concerned with actually fighting racism, they just see anti-racism as another tool in their arsenal, which they employ sustain the profitability of their business model. How would you see any evidence to the contrary, if you have no experience with this particular ideological corner of the internet?
Click to expand...

Individuals that participate in this kind of pile-on benefit by virtue signalling and telling the world how much better they are. It's how they build their ego.
 
lurchadams said:
I'm not a violent guy - but it's ok to fantasize. Every time I see him I think about all it would take to make his head pop off and roll on the floor would just take two fingers pinching his little pencil neck. He is utter scum, as are Hannity, Pirro, and Dobbs. They are actually harming this nation with their hate and misinformation.
Click to expand...

Have you considered join Maduro's Information Ministry?
 
Chomsky said:
I found the following pretty chilling
Click to expand...

I am sure I can find a bunch of white-hating black panthers who like Obama too. So what
 
Chomsky said:
I'd also like to comment on your claim that the media would attack a removed or recanted White Nationalist, unless they allow the media to manipulate them. I think there's some truth in much of the media being manipulative, but I'm not sure it's as strictly bi-modal as you portray. I suspect there's a lot of action in the middle, and it's not all either one way or the other. I'm speaking of the mainstream media here. Once we get to the non-MSM blogs and social media, I must admit it becomes the Wild West!
Click to expand...

It's not really absolute, but it's a pervasive 'soft wall' that exists within the institution. Judging from your profile picture, I'm sure you're familiar with the five filters described by Chomsky; that's the sort of thing that I'm talking about. 'The media' is an economic institution which looks out for its own interests first, not an organ for the promulgation of truth. There are a few journalists whom I admire (Michael Tracy, Glenn Greenwald), but they are frequently being alienated by the rest of the media, not embraced. I think that the MSM is going down a bit of a rabbit hole right now, and is trashing its own reputation.

Very few people in my generation trust them, because we've seen them go off the rails. Me and a bunch of my friends all watch PewDiePie, for instance. We see his videos, then we see these hitpieces in the Wall Street Journal (at first) and then other news outlets which either outright lie or distort through implication everything that happens. This of course fools people who have never seen a PewDiePie video, but the guy has almost 100 million followers. Even if half of those are multiple accounts, that's a lot of people who will from this point on always question what they hear from the media, will question their motives and whether what they are reporting is based on truth, or whether they are doing it to damage a big up and coming competitor. You can't help but do that when someone does the equivalent of tell you that the sky is green. Pewdiepie is very mild too, yet they endlessly smear him as a Nazi based on clear satire. When you see them do that, it doesn't become hard at all to see them smearing someone who actually has at some point been explicitly racist and whose ideas threaten their economic interests.

age media.jpg
 
SDET said:
Have you considered join Maduro's Information Ministry?
Click to expand...

Have you ever fantasized about anything you'd never really do?
 
I understand that the Democratic Party and most Democrats now worship corporations and the super rich. So not saying anything and everything corporations - particularly foreign owned corporations - want is unthinkable to most Democrats as they believe we all should be 100% submissive to the rich. The ACTORS of CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC and NBC all will say exactly what their corporate owners and employers demand delivering the script they are told to perform.

What Tucker is proving is that he isn't owned by corporations and the super rich. That is extremely rare now on the MSM.
 
Tucker has been pointing out that the same time that the Democratic Party is importing millions more uneducated no-skill and low skill migrant labor for the purpose of keeping blue collar wages to the absolute minimum for their corporate employers and masters, automatic is going to increasingly eliminate jobs performed by low-skill and no-skill employees.

Until employees are paid the same minimum wage as Mexico ($4 a day) the Democratic Party will furiously insist on more mass migration into the USA.
 
joko104 said:
Tucker has been pointing out that the same time that the Democratic Party is importing millions more uneducated no-skill and low skill migrant labor for the purpose of keeping blue collar wages to the absolute minimum for their corporate employers and masters, automatic is going to increasingly eliminate jobs performed by low-skill and no-skill employees.

Until employees are paid the same minimum wage as Mexico ($4 a day) the Democratic Party will furiously insist on more mass migration into the USA.
Click to expand...

As an added bonus for Democrats, those living in dire poverty are an asset to the left because they demand more socialism.
 
SDET said:
As an added bonus for Democrats, those living in dire poverty are an asset to the left because they demand more socialism.
Click to expand...

True. The more people the Democratic Party can make dependent on the government to survive they more they will stupidly vote for the party that promises (lies) everything for free.
 
$1000 said:
It's not really absolute, but it's a pervasive 'soft wall' that exists within the institution. Judging from your profile picture, I'm sure you're familiar with the five filters described by Chomsky; that's the sort of thing that I'm talking about. 'The media' is an economic institution which looks out for its own interests first, not an organ for the promulgation of truth. There are a few journalists whom I admire (Michael Tracy, Glenn Greenwald), but they are frequently being alienated by the rest of the media, not embraced. I think that the MSM is going down a bit of a rabbit hole right now, and is trashing its own reputation.

Very few people in my generation trust them, because we've seen them go off the rails. Me and a bunch of my friends all watch PewDiePie, for instance. We see his videos, then we see these hitpieces in the Wall Street Journal (at first) and then other news outlets which either outright lie or distort through implication everything that happens. This of course fools people who have never seen a PewDiePie video, but the guy has almost 100 million followers. Even if half of those are multiple accounts, that's a lot of people who will from this point on always question what they hear from the media, will question their motives and whether what they are reporting is based on truth, or whether they are doing it to damage a big up and coming competitor. You can't help but do that when someone does the equivalent of tell you that the sky is green. Pewdiepie is very mild too, yet they endlessly smear him as a Nazi based on clear satire. When you see them do that, it doesn't become hard at all to see them smearing someone who actually has at some point been explicitly racist and whose ideas threaten their economic interests.

View attachment 67254386
Click to expand...
Sorry, didn't see this earlier.

Well, there's a lot I agree with here. I think it's well written, and you present your points well.

Interesting that you bring-up the real life Chomsky, though. I do love the guy. He's a national treasure, and perhaps the last of his breed. So much historical perspective. Such pure liberalism. But when it comes to the media, you probably out-Chomsky me!

I took the Chomsky nick as a quick thing when I registered. While I like Chomsky's stuff and agree with a lot, I soon found many members expect me to be true to the RL Chomsky. That's not so bad, and I do agree with a lot of his stuff. But not always.

But mainly, Chomsky expands my mind. Reading him is always a lesson in challenging your perceptions of the world. And while I vary with the subject matter from liberal to moderate, and perhaps even a hair conservative once in awhile, every time I read Chomsky I realize I need to better polish my liberal chops.

So just wondering? With a strong distrust of the MSM, where do you get your news & information? Social media? Blogs? Podcasts? The plethora of information sources, and the democratization of the ability to propagate information, has really been a boon to us. But at the same time, it means we've got to sort through far more noise. In fact, the noise often "feels" deafening!


Anyway, glad to have you aboard as a fellow member. I've got the feeling you've got a lot to say. That's a good thing!
 
Chomsky said:
He's right there with Trump. Eighteen more months, my friend. Hopefully.
Click to expand...

18 more months of them deconstructing our democratic norms. What will be left by then?
 
Chomsky said:
So just wondering? With a strong distrust of the MSM, where do you get your news & information? Social media? Blogs? Podcasts? The plethora of information sources, and the democratization of the ability to propagate information, has really been a boon to us. But at the same time, it means we've got to sort through far more noise. In fact, the noise often "feels" deafening!
Click to expand...

For foreign policy, I rely a lot on Caspian Report. I also read a lot of the work of academics; for example, Mearsheimer is one of my favorites. Dambisa Moyo is another who I find interesting. I also think that history is often more important when it comes to understanding current global events than staying up to date on any news feed, because without the context it's easy to manipulate people into believing anything.



For current events, I tend to listen to all extremes and then judge from there. Everything from America First to Chapo Trap House. Plus there's twitter; I've mentioned that I like Tracy and Greenwald. I also find some of the more out-there characters to be entertaining, like Comrade Stump, a former Trump supporter who's become a half-ironic Stalinist, and some other Marxist tweeters and more reactionary types. When I watch the MSM it's more to see what line they're currently pushing than to get any sort of real glimpse at reality. I feel like if you expose yourself to radically different views you decrease the danger of falling into an echo chamber. Everyone's susceptible to propaganda, especially if they labor under the delusion that they're the exception to that rule. I also almost always watch the original source before I come to a conclusion. There are usually livefeeds of any violent protest clashes, you can watch controversial videos for yourself and make up your own mind. Doing that really gave me a crash course in how often the media lies.

Chomsky said:
Anyway, glad to have you aboard as a fellow member. I've got the feeling you've got a lot to say. That's a good thing!
Click to expand...

Thanks! Let me know if you have any favorite sources; I'm always open to new ideas!
 
Cardinal said:
18 more months of them deconstructing our democratic norms. What will be left by then?
Click to expand...
Meh. It's bad. But **** happens, We've had bad before.

Remember, except for the tax legislation, everything Trump did was through executive order, which can easily be overturned by the next President. And our world standing can be rebuilt, as it was under Obama after G.W.

But I must admit those judges are going to hurt for a long time. Hillary cost us big-time, here.
 
lurchadams said:
I'm not a violent guy - but it's ok to fantasize. Every time I see him I think about all it would take to make his head pop off and roll on the floor would just take two fingers pinching his little pencil neck. He is utter scum, as are Hannity, Pirro, and Dobbs. They are actually harming this nation with their hate and misinformation.
Click to expand...

First, you should probably not watch Tucker.
But second, you should definitely address your anger issues.
 
$1000 said:
...
For current events, I tend to listen to all extremes and then judge from there. Everything from America First to Chapo Trap House. Plus there's twitter; I've mentioned that I like Tracy and Greenwald. I also find some of the more out-there characters to be entertaining, like Comrade Stump, a former Trump supporter who's become a half-ironic Stalinist, and some other Marxist tweeters and more reactionary types. When I watch the MSM it's more to see what line they're currently pushing than to get any sort of real glimpse at reality. I feel like if you expose yourself to radically different views you decrease the danger of falling into an echo chamber. Everyone's susceptible to propaganda, especially if they labor under the delusion that they're the exception to that rule. I also almost always watch the original source before I come to a conclusion. There are usually livefeeds of any violent protest clashes, you can watch controversial videos for yourself and make up your own mind. Doing that really gave me a crash course in how often the media lies.


...
Click to expand...
For example, the source piece used for the OP of this thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom