Tucker Carlson

[Geoist]

The Left are incapable of inferring context and satire:roll:

Oh, so now it was satire when Tucker was talking about Warren Jeffs being unfairly convicted? Someone go tell Bubba the Love Sponge because he clearly wasn't in on the joke! :lamo

 

[sangha]

We both know the comments are merely being used an excuse to attack Tucker for his political leaning. The President of Media Matters could have made the exact same comments and the people talking about boycotting Tucker's advertisers wouldn't have given it a second thought.

Yeah, no one is truly offended by Tuckers defense of pedophilia

 

[Acadia]

Oh, so now it was satire when Tucker was talking about Warren Jeffs being unfairly convicted? Someone go tell Bubba the Love Sponge because he clearly wasn't in on the joke! :lamo

Yes, he was.
The Speech Police Come for Tucker Carlson - WSJ

The Speech Police Come for Tucker Carlson
Like Lenny Bruce, the Fox News host is the target of an organized effort at suppression.

I assume most people get the joke. We are rude, sometimes profane.

Tucker Carlson called into my satellite radio show regularly from 2006-11, and like all my guests, he adopted an edgy comic persona for the broadcast. He said really naughty things to make my audience laugh, and they did. The 100 or so shows we made with Mr. Carlson weren’t a secret.

Do I really need to go into the rich history of insult comedy? Lisa Lampanelli, Andrew Dice Clay, Rodney Dangerfield, even Triumph, the Insult Comic Dog. Comedy breaks taboo subjects that release the unspoken into the air in ways that are, dare I say, funny.

To be sure, we say really mean things on my radio show, and we laugh instead of getting mad. Why do we allow things to be said in comedy that wouldn’t be acceptable elsewhere? Believe it or not, scientists have studied comedy for an answer, and they found one. It’s called benign violation. We laugh when social norms are exceeded—the violation. But it’s not permanently harmful—it’s benign. No one called into my show authentically outraged about what Mr. Carlson said—not once—because everyone knew we were goofing in the spirit of the show.

To understand the mood of today, the only name you need to know is Lenny Bruce. A brilliant and shocking comic, Bruce was arrested over and over for obscenity—jailed for saying the wrong words. In New York he was convicted and died before his appeal could be heard.

Mr. Carlson is being smeared by a new generation of speech police for a new crime—refusing to give in to a small group of political activists who love all forms of “diversity” except of political thought. They take his comic words of a decade ago, reframe them as hateful, and require adherence to their demands. They attack the advertisers that simply want a chance to sell things to his audience, and threaten them with reputational destruction by public shaming unless they repudiate him. In the marketplace of ideas, these guys are shoplifters.

This is not only unfair but makes the world a sadder and angrier place. It’s a violation. There is nothing benign about falsely calling a good man a misogynist or a racist to force your politics on the half of the American public that rejects them.

If Mr. Carlson’s detractors think the way to counter his wit is to close him down by blacklisting him, I am afraid they’ll be disappointed. The chest-beating of the thought police will only help him grow. Americans love the underdog, and we love the unfairly maligned. Most of all, we love to be entertained. The people who hate Tucker Carlson are elevating him.

Did you hear the one about the political activists who decided to win on the strength of their own ideas, rather than smearing those they opposed? Me neither—and that’s no joke.

Mr. Clem hosts “Bubba the Love Sponge.”

 

[Tanngrisnir]

The Left are incapable of inferring context and satire:roll:

 

[Nap]

Yeah, no one is truly offended by Tuckers defense of pedophilia

And where exactly did he do that? I glanced through the transcripts and he was talking about arranged marriages between a 16 year old and a 27 year old. 16 is the age of consent in many states and is not pedophilia.

CARLSON: He's not accused of touching anybody; he is accused of facilitating a marriage between a 16-year-old girl and a 27-year-old man. That's the accusation. That's what they're calling felony rape. [crosstalk] That's bull****. I'm sorry. Now this guy may be [crosstalk], may be a child rapist. I'm just telling you that arranging a marriage between a 16-year-old and a 27-year-old is not the same as pulling a stranger off the street and raping her. That's bull****

CARLSON: It's disgusting! I think the religion is ridiculous, I think it's a cult, I think it's totally immoral. But that's not the point. The question is, two questions -- one: Is this guy one of the top 10 most dangerous people in America? The answer is no, unequivocally no. And two: If you’re, like, for the government butting out of the bedroom and for gay marriage, and for the right of strip clubs to operate unimpeded by governments -- how exactly can you be against polygamy? On what grounds are you against polygamy? I don't get that

He later even clarified his statements saying that it was disgusting and immoral, I'm not quite sure what the issue is.

 

[Mustachio]

Stick to the subject yet you can't help but bring up a very old accusation which doesn't have nearly the gravitas as the two women who are accusing Fairfax, with highly-detailed accusations and contemporaneous reporting.
I highly doubt that the Left will back down from their calls for Tucker to be fired because he said some really crap stuff on a really crap shock jock show over a decade ago, while they have uniformly gone silent on a man credibly accused of rape and sexual assault.
It's just the usual level of intellectual dishonesty and feigned outrage.

I love the "over a decade ago." Wasn't it more like 9 years ago? So he said those things after Barack Obama was elected, to put that into perspective.

That's really not that long ago for a man who couldn't figure out he looked like a moron in a bow tie for "over two decades." But the bow tie aside, did he say he no longer believes those things? Has Carlson given any indication that he isn't a clueless, racist, sexist idiot? Nah, but apologies don't mean anything in this day and age anyway.

 

[Acadia]

I love the "over a decade ago." Wasn't it more like 9 years ago? So he said those things after Barack Obama was elected, to put that into perspective.

That's really not that long ago for a man who couldn't figure out he looked like a moron in a bow tie for "over two decades." But the bow tie aside, did he say he no longer believes those things? Has Carlson given any indication that he isn't a clueless, racist, sexist idiot? Nah, but apologies don't mean anything in this day and age anyway.

Apropos of nothing:roll:
Maybe he said those things every time Mercury was in retrograde. That means something too, I'm sure.

 

[maxparrish]

And where exactly did he do that? I glanced through the transcripts and he was talking about arranged marriages between a 16 year old and a 27 year old. 16 is the age of consent in many states and is not pedophilia.

He later even clarified his statements saying that it was disgusting and immoral, I'm not quite sure what the issue is.

The issue is that that the right of center speakers, writers, and film makers, those folk that express anti-liberal social heresies, communicate viewpoints inconsistent with being a good liberal - that "kind" of free speech being "no good".

And because such "profane" viewpoints might have currency in the marketplace of ideas, the right-wing speakers and writers voices must be extinguished by any legal (or even illegal) means possible. The belief that liberals are free thinkers, promoters of diversity, and open minded is old fashioned nonsense, even if it always was always a self-esteem myth of American liberalism.

Of course, the censors and book-burners of the left no longer use scissors and kindling, aware that in the modern age, the most effective form of repression is de-platforming - destroying the heretics media soapboxes and internet presses. Hence annoy the millions of inflamed liberal hooligans, and rest assured the knuckle-draggers will be hounding you at your home, your public business, or at work. They will be screaming for your termination, and your utter and complete financial and social ruin. It is their form of the periodic brown-shirted Kristallnacht, smashing and blacklisting "the enemy's" means of support - not that of Jews but of anyone of any race, creed, or gender who are NOT of their ideological body.

The issue is simple; make the dissenter grovel, confess, and beg forgiveness, to wear a metaphorical dunce cap, while hounding the dissenter into extinction. Think of it as making 1/2 the country live as ideological illegals, makeing them live in the shadows while raving about their growing threat to "the body" of decent citizens.

It's a figurative that even liberals can understand.

 

[Winston]

Apropos of nothing:roll:
Maybe he said those things every time Mercury was in retrograde. That means something too, I'm sure.

You did see the anti-semitic trope Tucker trotted out on his show? Of the Jewish puppetmaster controlling Brian Stelter?

You were one losing your head about anti-semitism in regards to Ilhan Omar, were you not?

 

[Winston]

The issue is that that all right of center speakers, writers, and film makers, you know those folk that express social heresies, express viewpoints inconsistent with being a good liberal.

Because such "profane" views might have currency in the marketplace of ideas, their speakers and writers voices must be extinguished by any legal (or even illegal) means possible. The belief that liberals are free thinkers, promoters of diversity, and open minded is no longer acceptable, even if it always was a largely a self-esteem myth of American liberalism.

Of course, the censors and book-burners of the left no longer use scissors and kindling, aware that in the modern age, the most effective form of repression is de-platforming - destroying the heretics media soapboxes and internet presses. Hence annoy the millions of inflamed liberal hooligans, and rest assured the knuckle-draggers will be hounding you at your home, your public business, or at work. They will be screaming for your termination, your utter and complete financial and social ruin. It is their form of periodic brown-shirted Kristallnacht, smashing and blacklisting - not Jews but anyone of any race, creed, or gender who are NOT of their ideological body.

The issue is simple; make the dissenter grovel and beg forgiveness while hounding the dissenter into extinction. Think of it as making 1/2 the country live as ideological illegals, make them live in the shadows while raving about their growing threat.

It's a figurative that even liberals can understand.

The idea that a reaction to Tucker Carlson calling Iraqi's primitive monkeys and defending Warren Jeffs on child rape is an attack on free speech is a hilarious and tranparent dodge.

 

[Geoist]

Yes, he was.

Bull****. And no **** you try to be controversial and funny on shock jock shows everyone knows that. But anyone with a brain knows he was actually getting into a debate with Bubba over Warren Jeffs. All this crap about 'suppressing free speech' is just that: crap. No one said Tucker had no right to say what he said. But when you say something controversial expect others who disagree with you to utilize their own free speech.

 

[Winston]

Bull****. And no **** you try to be controversial and funny on shock jock shows everyone knows that. But anyone with a brain knows he was actually getting into a debate with Bubba over Warren Jeffs. All this crap about 'suppressing free speech' is just that: crap. No one said Tucker had no right to say what he said. But when you say something controversial expect others who disagree with you to utilize their own free speech.

Tucker's response to getting caught is only fanning the flames. Tucker could've handled it like an adult. He chose to lie and deflect and throw more red meat to the base about the left attacking his free speech rights. Because they know they are primed to hate the left for that largely bogus, made up claim from the right.

If Tucker had said, "Look, I was joking around about the misogyny and bigotry towards Iraqi's. I was having fun and just messing around. The stuff about Jeffs, I had incomplete information. I still vehemently disagree with the way media matters exposed me and I'm not going off air for some dumb things I said a long time ago."

Cool, everyone can move on. Rather he ratcheted up the war in my eyes, by choosing to lie and basically demagogue to his audience. He didn't even address the substance of the interview that we all saw. Nothing about Jeffs, nothing about Iraqi's, nothing about misogony. Just "OMG I'm the victim. Dave Rubin come give me warm kisses and huggles."

 

[maxparrish]

The idea that a reaction to Tucker Carlson calling Iraqi's primitive monkeys and defending Warren Jeffs on child rape is an attack on free speech is a hilarious and tranparent dodge.

The idea that 10-13 years after making intentionally satirical and riffing comments on a shock jock radio show was actually both SERIOUS and accurately reported is not hilarious, its too stupid. And for you to suppose that Tucker or his supporters should at least legitimize the "too stupid" perception by giving an apology or retraction, is rather dim witted as well.

So to point out that the "too stupid" is a pretext for DE platforming is not a dodge, its exposing an "outrage" moronicy for what it is - a pretext for a political goal of repression of speech and writing for alleged views you don't agree with - REGARDLESS of whether or not you are offended.

But then that is the whole purpose of book-burning, is it not?

So who is dodging again?

 

[Winston]

The idea that 10-13 years after making intentionally satirical and riffing comments on a shock jock radio show was actually both SERIOUS and accurately reported is not hilarious, its too stupid to survive the mutton-head test. And for you to suppose that Tucker or his supporters are going legitimize the "too stupid" as if it mattered

To point out that the "too stupid" is a pretext for DE platforming is not a dodge, its exposing an "outrage" moronicy for what it is - a pretext for a political goal of repression of speech and writing for alleged views you don't agree with.

But then that is the whole purpose of book-burning, is it not?

So who is dodging again?


one should react with hysteria is not so much hilarious as it is sad.

Dude, jokes have punchlines. :shrugs: Where's the punchline in Iraqi's are primitive monkeys who should just obey?

He even got into a debate with the Bubba guy to defend Warren Jeffs.. and then Tucker acted like a baby when this all came out. Pretending this is about free speech, when it's actually about not being a total scumbag. And it looks like Tucker insists on proving he's a total scumbag.

 

[cabse5]

What anti-free market actions have been taken? Seems you don't even know what a free market is.

Before you answered, you should've realized the free market means each buyer/seller has influence over the market not some mob.

 

[maxparrish]

Tucker's response to getting caught is only fanning the flames. Tucker could've handled it like an adult. He chose to lie and deflect and throw more red meat to the base about the left attacking his free speech rights. Because they know they are primed to hate the left for that largely bogus, made up claim from the right.

If Tucker had said, "Look, I was joking around about the misogyny and bigotry towards Iraqi's. I was having fun and just messing around. The stuff about Jeffs, I had incomplete information. I still vehemently disagree with the way media matters exposed me and I'm not going off air for some dumb things I said a long time ago."

Cool, everyone can move on. Rather he ratcheted up the war in my eyes, by choosing to lie and basically demagogue to his audience. He didn't even address the substance of the interview that we all saw. Nothing about Jeffs, nothing about Iraqi's, nothing about misogony. Just "OMG I'm the victim. Dave Rubin come give me warm kisses and huggles."

Like so many, you don't get it. And like those others, I doubt that even after I explain it (perhaps more than once) you still won't get it. BUT on the slightest chance you might, I will explain.

First, Tucker "getting caught" ASSUMES that he was hiding something, something he is ashamed of - he wasn't. The implicit assumption behind your characterization is incorrect.

Second, Tucker is not under any moral obligation to participate in an argument over something obviously trivial and meaningless - especially comedy material 10-13 years ago. To do so legitimizes YOUR VIEW that their is a serious pretext to debate.

Think of it as a thought experiment: Mr. Jones finds out that 10 years ago his neighbor, Mr. Smith said, half jokingly, he only likes long hair on women and that the moon is made of green cheese. Mr. Jones "caught him" being biased to short-haired girls and insulting moon worshipers, and several days ago wants a retraction or debate. Mr. Smith has a choice: either legitimize it as a concern by trying to argue or correct or confess to Mr. Jones, or tell Jones to get a life.

Tucker, like Smith would, is telling his critics to get a life. He's not going to walk into a swamp of bitter acrimony and legitimize "a trial" over what was said about preferences, how it was said, or if he still believes what he said on an entertainment show - JUST because Mr. Jones thinks its important to put Mr. Tucker on public trial. And its not going to change just because Mr. Jones gets the neighbors into a frenzy and they twitter him (and his boss) in mass about his hostility to the moon and short-haired women.

Third, before you spout "this is different" be reminded that it is ONLY different in that you perceive that Smith's comment was innocuous and Tuckers was not. However, Smith and Tucker have no obligation to participate in a public Kangaroo court of hair pullers JUST because they the mobs has an opinion that Smith or Tucker do not share. In short, to do so LEGITIMIZES the subject as the business of the mob to decide and punish.

Last, he is not demagoguing the audience. He is standing on a principal that he is not going to play the public pillory game of Mr. Jones (Media Matters), which are pre-textual excuses for demanding de-platforming. Anyone with half a brain knows how the shows work, and that they are NOT political forums.

Got it?

 

[maxparrish]

Dude, jokes have punchlines. :shrugs: Where's the punchline in Iraqi's are primitive monkeys who should just obey?

He even got into a debate with the Bubba guy to defend Warren Jeffs.. and then Tucker acted like a baby when this all came out. Pretending this is about free speech, when it's actually about not being a total scumbag. And it looks like Tucker insists on proving he's a total scumbag.

My recent reply to one of your posts provides my view. However, a few comments:

- Joking does not require punch lines; joking can be based on exaggeration, irony, mock comparisons, and any subject (including your mother) than may elicit a smile.

- Your assumption that he was defending Warren Jeffs, as a person, is incorrect. He was criticizing the legal accusation of facilitating "rape" in a case wherein Jeffs married the presumed "rapist to be" (the groom) was never accused and charged for rape.

This is EXACTLY why Tucker would be a fool to legitimize a campaign of distortion, smear, and mud-gunning by having to refute every gullible lie and edited dialog that MM spouts - if you wrestle with a pig you only get dirty, and the pig enjoys it.

 

[Winston]

Like so many, you don't get it. And like those others, I doubt that even after I explain it (perhaps more than once) you still won't get it. BUT on the slightest chance you might, I will explain.

First, Tucker "getting caught" ASSUMES that he was hiding something, something he is ashamed of - he wasn't. The implicit assumption behind your characterization is incorrect.

Tucker wasn't hiding something, Tucker is hiding something. Why won't he address the substance of the issue? He is hiding something, since he refuses to address the substance.

Second, Tucker is not under any moral obligation to participate in an argument over something obviously trivial and meaningless - especially comedy material 10-13 years ago. To do so legitimizes YOUR VIEW that their is a serious pretext to debate.

Tucker has so far displayed no compunction to disavow the atrocious things he said, one can only wonder why. Okay, so, it's good to stipulate what we believe Tucker was being serious about, and what he wasn't. You want to explain away some of the things Tucker said as yucks and then say he was also defending Jeffs in some serious way. So, Tucker is oscillating between jokes and legal analysis. That's fine, it's just important to define what is a joke and what is serious. It would be nice if Tucker would do that for us, rather than run away cowardly and ironically, create more outrage.

Think of it as a thought experiment: Mr. Jones finds out that 10 years ago his neighbor, Mr. Smith said, half jokingly, he only likes long hair on women and that the moon is made of green cheese. Mr. Jones "caught him" being biased to short-haired girls and insulting moon worshipers, and several days ago wants a retraction or debate. Mr. Smith has a choice: either legitimize it as a concern by trying to argue or correct or confess to Mr. Jones, or tell Jones to get a life.

Tucker, like Smith would, is telling his critics to get a life. He's not going to walk into a swamp of bitter acrimony and legitimize "a trial" over what was said about preferences, how it was said, or if he still believes what he said on an entertainment show - JUST because Mr. Jones thinks its important to put Mr. Tucker on public trial. And its not going to change just because Mr. Jones gets the neighbors into a frenzy and they twitter him (and his boss) in mass about his hostility to the moon and short-haired women.

Well, we've already established now, that some portions of the interview were serious. The video is evidence enough of that. In it you see the host pushing back on Tucker's asinine remarks on Warren Jeffs, because even the interviewer was surprised at the absurdity and abject amorality of what Tucker was saying.

Third, before you spout "this is different" be reminded that it is ONLY different in that you perceive that Smith's comment was innocuous and Tuckers was not. However, Smith and Tucker have no obligation to participate in a public Kangaroo court of hair pullers JUST because they the mobs has an opinion that Smith or Tucker do not share. In short, to do so LEGITIMIZES the subject as the business of the mob to decide and punish.

I don't know that I would agree that your Mr. Smith should just tell his neighbor to piss off. Whether or not Mr. Smith likes it, the neighbor has a grievance. Would it not be better to talk the grievance out and decide whose side has a better point? I've heard often that the right is for an open exchange of ideas. Here's a perfect time to do just that. In the case of Tucker Carlson, it would be nice if he would clarify his remarks. If he did that, I honestly think it would put the issue to rest. As it stands he just looks unrepentant and cowardly.

Last, he is not demagoguing the audience. He is standing on a principal that he is not going to play the public pillory game of Mr. Jones (Media Matters), which are pre-textual excuses for demanding de-platforming. Anyone with half a brain knows how the shows work, and that they are NOT political forums.

Got it?

He absolutely was demagoguing the audience. The chirons read just knee-jerk anti-left wing mumbo jumbo. He did nothing to rise to the occasion and what little respect I had for him as an intellectual is completely gone. That doesn't mean the situation is irredeemable, but, he has to approach it with some honesty.

 

[ralphcdp]

if you wrestle with a pig you only get dirty, and the pig enjoys it.

Is this knowledge gained from first hand experience?

 

[maxparrish]

Is this knowledge gained from first hand experience?

Its from reading books and advice from George Orwell. If you doubt Orwell, perhaps you ought to give it a try.

 

[ralphcdp]

Its from reading books and advice from George Orwell. Perhaps you ought to give it a try.

Just a wee joke, max. Don't get upset. Actually, I just reread 1984. That is the sum history of the USA.

 

[maxparrish]

Just a wee joke, max. Don't get upset. Actually, I just reread 1984. That is the sum history of the USA.

I'm not upset, I'm answering your question. And if you don't expect it to be answered, then an emoji with a wink it is order. There is no "tone of voice" to text.

 

[Mustachio]

Apropos of nothing:roll:
Maybe he said those things every time Mercury was in retrograde. That means something too, I'm sure.

I was putting it into perspective. As in, "remember how that was really not long ago at all?" For an adult, at least. Unless you totally understood that and was mentioning how mercury was just in retrograde and making my point even more relevant.

 

[ralphcdp]

I'm not upset, I'm answering your question. And if you don't expect it to be answered, then an emoji with a wink it is order. There is no "tone of voice" to text.

Tucker is one fat cover up from beginning to end. He pretended to be knowledgeable about that September morn and the events of it when he was woefully ignorant of the events and the science.

 

[maxparrish]

Tucker wasn't hiding something, Tucker is hiding something. Why won't he address the substance of the issue? He is hiding something, since he refuses to address the substance.

There is nothing to hide. A left ideological soldier spent weeks listening through a hundred hours of taped broadcasts looking for embarrassing or scandalous material on Tucker. He found what was there and MM made edited hay out of it to de-platform Tucker.

It is what it is - which in Tucker's view is making a mountain over a grain of sand. Your opinion may be different. But if you think there is something hidden, I encourage you to play it backward and see if there is a coded message to the illuminati - or at least enroll in mind-reading school. :roll:

Tucker has so far displayed no compunction to disavow the atrocious things he said, one can only wonder why. Okay, so, it's good to stipulate what we believe Tucker was being serious about, and what he wasn't. You want to explain away some of the things Tucker said as yucks and then say he was also defending Jeffs in some serious way. So, Tucker is oscillating between jokes and legal analysis. That's fine, it's just important to define what is a joke and what is serious. It would be nice if Tucker would do that for us, rather than run away cowardly and ironically, create more outrage.

I don't believe I heard anything atrocious, especially so in context. Therefore there is nothing to "explain away". However, if your ear (or eye) is so tone deaf so as to not know that making light of a legal situation can also contain a point, then I doubt Tucker or I have any hope of educating you - especially so when you contemptuously ad hom a person as cowardly.

Either your sense of humor and meaning is stunted by partisan zealotry, or its not.

Well, we've already established now, that some portions of the interview were serious. The video is evidence enough of that. In it you see the host pushing back on Tucker's asinine remarks on Warren Jeffs, because even the interviewer was surprised at the absurdity and abject amorality of what Tucker was saying.

Thank you for characterizing, which is about as dialog worthy as saying "His stuff bad, what is your response?".

You have failed to provide a quote of any exchange, including on the subject of Jeffs. I don't answer accusations that are unsupported subjective impressions. Present the specific transcripts or video exchange (no more and no less) then I'll give you my impression.

I don't know that I would agree that your Mr. Smith should just tell his neighbor to piss off. Whether or not Mr. Smith likes it, the neighbor has a grievance. Would it not be better to talk the grievance out and decide whose side has a better point? I've heard often that the right is for an open exchange of ideas.

Only a fool entertains a crank whose purpose is not "an open exchange of ideas" but to drive you from the neighborhood, and is someone who is incapable of knowing (and doesn't care) if their wrong. Tucker's critics aren't genuinely interested in his views or his explanations - this is the zealots means of repression.

The notion that a smear is really asking for an honest exchange of ideas is both laughable and more than daffy.

He absolutely was demagoguing the audience. The chirons read just knee-jerk anti-left wing mumbo jumbo. He did nothing to rise to the occasion and what little respect I had for him as an intellectual is completely gone. That doesn't mean the situation is irredeemable, but, he has to approach it with some honesty.

The grand inquisitors offer of conditional ideological forgiveness so as to avoid being irredeemable is quite telling, as it is unintentionally honest.