Guess who said it: Tucker Carlson or a far-right shooter

[ttwtt78640]

By "nonsense" you obviously mean facts that you don't like.

Nope, I (like the OP) was referring to opinions with which I don't agree.

 

[NWRatCon]

The OP is asking us to discern the difference in thoughts (quotes?) between TC and some terrorist. It is not a person's thoughts which result in terror charges it is their actions.

There may be a difference in action, but Carlson expresses the thoughts of a white supremacist every day. The article was comparing the language of their two manifestos. You can find some of the same language in Mein Kampf. If that doesn't worry one a little, they're not paying attention. My point in posting the article was to point out that language matters. Hitler had Joseph Goebbels as his public propagandist; Richard Spencer has Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham. When public speakers reflect the same thought patterns as white supremacists that should be a) recognized as such, and b) be noted. That one doesn't notice is worrisome to me. When one defends it as "normal" and "acceptable", that is downright scary. It shows the propaganda is working.

 

[AProudLefty]

Hmm... calling different political views "retarded nonsense" is hardly consistent with praising diversity.

Isn't calling TC's statements "retarded nonsense" also praising diversity? :lamo You're not good at this, are you?

 

[digitusmedius]

Nope, I (like the OP) was referring to opinions with which I don't agree.

Uh-huh.

 

[NWRatCon]

Isn't having "the psychos" an important part of diversity or have you too decided that folks having common values (and common sense) would be a tad better? It seems that many see (define?) diversity as folks having differences in physical appearance, ethnicity and language skills but not in having differences in political views.

Having psychos is a side effect of our freedom of speech, but not a feature. People can have different views. But it is not unreasonable to point out that those views are not "mainstream" and happen to be in line with the views of those psychos. I may support the right to express one's point of view (see my Sig line), but that doesn't mean I agree with it, or that I shouldn't identify it as unreasonable. I don't agree with Nazis or white supremacists, and I think their views are reprehensible and dangerous. I can't defend their views, but clearly others can.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Having psychos is a side effect of our freedom of speech, but not a feature. People can have different views. But it is not unreasonable to point out that those views are not "mainstream" and happen to be in line with the views of those psychos. I may support the right to express one's point of view (see my Sig line), but that doesn't mean I agree with it, or that I shouldn't identify it as unreasonable. I don't agree with Nazis or white supremacists, and I think their views are reprehensible and dangerous. I can't defend their views, but clearly others can.

As I had pointed out earlier, the view of entitlement to the income/wealth/property of another person is also shared by criminals - does that make the basic idea (of income/wealth/property redistribution) wrong or only its implementation (self-enforcement?) via a criminal act wrong?

 

[3leftsdoo]

This was an article in the Guardian, which I think counts as a Mainstream news source - except it is not American, so maybe not. Guess who said it: Tucker Carlson or a far-right shooter versusor thisNow, if you think this is a trick question, it is not. It is just very, very difficult to distinguish between Tucker Carlson's stated beliefs and the run-of-the-mill white supremacist terrorist.

Free speech = Evil

 

[Crossfire]

Isn't calling TC's statements "retarded nonsense" also praising diversity? :lamo You're not good at this, are you?

Do you actually read what you write, or are you responding without actually reading what you are responding to? He said calling different political views "retarded nonsense" is NOT consistent with praising diversity. It would seem that YOU are not very good at this.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

* That particular argument neatly sidesteps the undeniable fact that the early arrivals of Europeans to what is now the United States of America did not assimilate with the culture of the Indians who inhabited the land surrounding them. That carries with it the assumption of the superiority of the culture of the Pilgrims. And so it goes.

In 1988 the U.S. Senate passed a resolution recognizing the valuable contribution made by the Iroquois Confederacy to our own Constitution, something which was recognized by Benjamin Franklin himself centuries earlier.
But of course we could never admit that we assimilated to any degree. :lamo
And I guess all those Indian names for cities, and even the very states themselves can't be counted as any indicator either. :lamo

My five cents...

 

[AProudLefty]

Do you actually read what you write, or are you responding without actually reading what you are responding to? He said calling different political views "retarded nonsense" is NOT consistent with praising diversity. It would seem that YOU are not very good at this.

*Facepalm* The beauty of diversity is that you can call anything what you want. Tucker does that all the time ironically. Are you saying that Trump doesn't praise diversity because he calls people names and tell their statements are (include your favorite Trump's words). You understand that him saying that what I said is not praising diversity is ironically not praising diversity HIMSELF.

Jesus. Both of you guys are poor at this.

 

[Crossfire]

*Facepalm* The beauty of diversity is that you can call anything what you want. Tucker does that all the time ironically. Are you saying that Trump doesn't praise diversity because he calls people names and tell their statements are (include your favorite Trump's words). You understand that him saying that what I said is not praising diversity is ironically not praising diversity HIMSELF.

Jesus. Both of you guys are poor at this.

Well, I do not remember him championing diversity just for the sake of diversity either. He certainly did not mention that diversity needs to be praised. Sorry, but it is you who is not good at this, and you obviously have no idea what diversity is. Maybe you would have a better time not making a fool of yourself if you could get Donald Trump out of your head for a while. He was not the subject of the discussion, at all.

 

[AProudLefty]

Well, I do not remember him championing diversity just for the sake of diversity either. He certainly did not mention that diversity needs to be praised. Sorry, but it is you who is not good at this, and you obviously have no idea what diversity is. Maybe you would have a better time not making a fool of yourself if you could get Donald Trump out of your head for a while. He was not the subject of the discussion, at all.

So you think I should just pat on Friar Tucker's head and tell him what he said is wonderful and intelligent for the sake of diversity? :roll:
Uh I was using Trump and Tucker as examples to show how ridiculous your claim is and how you stink at this. One way to be against diversity is to attempt to suppress Tucker's free speech.

 

[Crossfire]

So you think I should just pat on Friar Tucker's head and tell him what he said is wonderful and intelligent for the sake of diversity? :roll:
Uh I was using Trump and Tucker as examples to show how ridiculous your claim is and how you stink at this. One way to be against diversity is to attempt to suppress Tucker's free speech.

I am sorry. I feel like I made a wrong turn and happened upon an insane asylum in this place. You will not have to worry about me stinking at this. You go ahead back to your echo chamber. You fit in there.

 

[AProudLefty]

I am sorry. I feel like I made a wrong turn and happened upon an insane asylum in this place. You will not have to worry about me stinking at this. You go ahead back to your echo chamber. You fit in there.

All of this is because I said I was praising diversity? I said Tucker can say whatever silly things he want. Is that not praising diversity of political views?
And yes you're correct. This is an insane asylum.

 

[bullseyelqcs]

Thus he should have no power - so why worry about what he says?

He SHOULDN'T have power....that is different than the fact that he DOES.

The question you ask is akin to this situation.....a crime boss who NEVER, and I do mean never, actually pulls the trigger in murders he wants committed is no different that Carlson in this situation, at least according to your line of thinking. By all rights, he shouldn't have the power to influence someone to do something like that, but somehow he does. The same holds true for the words ANY of us speaks. In a perfect world, each person would have the capacity to think for themselves and not let the words of someone else drive us to stupid ****. That, however, would require us to be in a perfect world, which we aren't.

The simple point that the OP was trying to make was that when the words one speaks are indistinguishable from the words of racists, its not that out of line to call what you said racist, even if you aren't one as a person. One need not be a racist to express racist remarks.

 

[bullseyelqcs]

Isn't having "the psychos" an important part of diversity or have you too decided that folks having common values (and common sense) would be a tad better? It seems that many see (define?) diversity as folks having differences in physical appearance, ethnicity and language skills but not in having differences in political views.

Being psychotic has nothing to do with political views. Only the lazy would try to equate them. There are nutjobs on both sides of the political spectrum. That they would kill someone because they weren't white or because they harmed a dolphin is besides the point.

 

[ttwtt78640]

He SHOULDN'T have power....that is different than the fact that he DOES.

The question you ask is akin to this situation.....a crime boss who NEVER, and I do mean never, actually pulls the trigger in murders he wants committed is no different that Carlson in this situation, at least according to your line of thinking. By all rights, he shouldn't have the power to influence someone to do something like that, but somehow he does. The same holds true for the words ANY of us speaks. In a perfect world, each person would have the capacity to think for themselves and not let the words of someone else drive us to stupid ****. That, however, would require us to be in a perfect world, which we aren't.

The simple point that the OP was trying to make was that when the words one speaks are indistinguishable from the words of racists, its not that out of line to call what you said racist, even if you aren't one as a person. One need not be a racist to express racist remarks.

It is simply nonsense to even try to equate Tucker Carlson to a "crime boss".

 

[ttwtt78640]

Being psychotic has nothing to do with political views. Only the lazy would try to equate them. There are nutjobs on both sides of the political spectrum. That they would kill someone because they weren't white or because they harmed a dolphin is besides the point.

Nope, that is precisely the point - they do not think rationally so assigning any reason for their actions is foolish.

 

[bullseyelqcs]

It is simply nonsense to even try to equate Tucker Carlson to a "crime boss".

I assume you took the easy route because you didn't have anything else. Okay, cool. Lets pretend that post looked like this instead....

The simple point that the OP was trying to make was that when the words one speaks are indistinguishable from the words of racists, its not that out of line to call what you said racist, even if you aren't one as a person. One need not be a racist to express racist remarks.

Got anything for that?

 

[bullseyelqcs]

Nope, that is precisely the point - they do not think rationally so assigning any reason for their actions is foolish.

You were the one who equated being a psycho with some sort of political leaning, not me. Are you disputing your own words now?

 

[ttwtt78640]

I assume you took the easy route because you didn't have anything else. Okay, cool. Lets pretend that post looked like this instead....

The simple point that the OP was trying to make was that when the words one speaks are indistinguishable from the words of racists, its not that out of line to call what you said racist, even if you aren't one as a person. One need not be a racist to express racist remarks.

Got anything for that?

Yes, diversity is not limited to race.

 

[bullseyelqcs]

Yes, diversity is not limited to race.

What does that have to do with the statement I made?

 

[ttwtt78640]

You were the one who equated being a psycho with some sort of political leaning, not me. Are you disputing your own words now?

I did no such thing, I simply pointed out that part of overall diversity is one's level of sanity.

Here are my own words:

Isn't having "the psychos" an important part of diversity

 

[ttwtt78640]

What does that have to do with the statement I made?

You said (admitted that?) that non-racists could use racist language/terms (specifically "one need not be a racist to express racist remarks". Therefore a diverse range of folks (both racists and non-racists) could use racist language/terms.

 

[bullseyelqcs]

You said (admitted that?) that non-racists could use racist language/terms (specifically "one need not be a racist to express racist remarks". Therefore a diverse range of folks (both racists and non-racists) could use racist language/terms.

Yes, that is correct. That one is not a racist, however, does not mean that what they said may or may not be.

See, I'll explain it this way......Donald Trump, for example, is a bigot in my opinion, not a racist. That said, it doesn't mean he hasn't made racist comments. The problem is that there are lots of people who don't think he is either, and that because they don't think he is either, what he says can't be labeled as such. That is simply wrong.

Same holds true for the subject of this thread. Carlson is an idiot and a bigot, but I don't think he is a full on racist. That doesn't mean he hasn't made any racist comments to speak of.