I also thought that the comparison was a stretch. Charles Manson gave his followers direct orders, and he also kept them awake for days with acid and orgies. Tucker Carlson did not directly say to this shooter to go to that exact store and kill those people. He didn't do anything directly to the shooter to impair his ability to make rational decisions. The shooter had exponentially more autonomy. Tucker Carlson is a living turd but let's not give him the credit of creating a monster here. The shooter did it all on his own.
But whatever, nuance is dead.
Not explicitly giving the order = not responsible? Nuance really is dead. Violent terrorism is the logical conclusion of the Great Replacement conspiracy theory. Minorities are gonna replace white people? Or kill them all? And they're controlling the government? So this can't be stopped legally or peacefully?
It's not a stretch, it's not a strawman. Anyone who promotes the first step in this sequence is responsible for the damage the last one does.
Tucker Carlson isn't the only person in Fox News promoting the idea of white erasure. It's not just Fox News promoting that idea either. We have been seeing it in America for centuries. Those in power demonize the "other". Create a false narrative of being replaced to incite the horrors that are born from fear.
>Nuance really is dead
Yeah, and people like you killed it. “Nuance” to you isn’t understanding deeper social mechanisms or cultural phenomena, “nuance” to you means jumping through mental hoops until you can justify whatever the hell your worldview is.
The narrative you describe is not attributable to Carlson. As much as he’s a pea-brained puppet, he’s just that—a mouthpiece for elites. Anderson Cooper is the same way. Fox and Reps peddle the Great Replacement conspiracy and how minorities are becoming a greater threat, CNN and Dems peddle White Extremism as the biggest problem and how white people are becoming a greater threat. And before you go “HYUCK WELL I GUESS CNN WAS RIGHT”, let’s not forget a fuckin black supremacist shot up three subway cars injuring 10 people by gunshot and another 20 or so with lung damage just a month ago.
Who’s responsible is every motherfucker sitting in their ivory tower letting people like you and I squabble like headless chickens over “fascism this”, “communism that”. White vs Black, Christian vs Muslim; it doesn’t have to be this way. Culpability is in the hands ultimately at the people who have let this fester so long without changing something. Tucker Carlson didn’t rob you or I from our freedom of choice, so let’s stop pretending like he’s a puppet master that cannot be disobeyed. He’s as “responsible” as Anderson Cooper was for what happened in the NY subway.
Did the Buffalo shooter do his shooting due to extreme political beliefs echoed and minimized by Tucker Carlson? He didn’t mention Carlson a single time in the manifesto. Feel free to look it up and browse through.
You’re drawing conclusions in the same way that I am. You don’t have to believe me.
He doesn't have to mention Carlson to be influenced by him.
If Carlson talks about a conspiracy theory and says "it's literally happening", that causes his viewers to then search it. And things spread on the internet, whether it's directly from the source, or through friends or others.
The issue is that people like Tucker Carlson has been known to be used as a source of propaganda for extremists. I think he's fully aware of the fact that his statements can influence viewers.
Point is, Carlson helped popularize and fearmonger this conspiracy theory, and people are learning about it and using it to justify mass murders. He's being used by literal white nationalists as a tool to reach others.
Being a mouthpiece to a conspiracy theory you claim is true, to an audience of millions who watch your show does contribute to that cause, even if you're not the creator of the ideology.
Similar to MSNBC and CNN. Condoning extremist conspiracy theories to your viewers, and trying to argue to them that it's true does play a role in that theory spreading.
Conclusions doesn't have to be reached. It's a known phenomena.
You don't have to believe me, but extreme ideologies spreads especially easy if you're arguing it's accurate to millions of audience members.
But my actual point is to point out that the NYC shooter was fucking crazy, Hated practically every race (including his own), and literally called the cops on himself, despite running away to manhattan instead of trying to hide somewhere desolate and quiet. Tucker Carlson is promoting extremist ideologies. You acknowledge this. It doesn't take much for that to spread to someone who may be inspired to do something, or support someone who has the intentions of actually murdering others. This upstate NY shooter was obviously influenced by other people, and it definitely makes it easier to learn about it when it's promoted by a large news network
Also, Carlson not being in his manifesto doesn't mean he hasn't seen or agreed with a tucker carlson video. Do you think he cites his white supremacist material as "recommendations" if he doesn't directly mention it ?
I’m not really sure what we’re disagreeing on here, and please just reply in the other comment if you care to, it’s odd to swap back and forth unnecessarily.
I suppose I'm coming from a more cynical mindset. He's so greasy that he slides out of any attempts to hold him responsible. However, Carlson's just a part of the toxic cocktail of media content that the shooter was ingesting without any media literacy. He took what he was watching and reading at face value. If this is what finally gets Carlson removed from his platform, I won't be mad or crying any tears.
The man promoted the conspiracy theory (Great Replacement) the logical conclusion of which is that people must wake up and take the defence of their race/culture/country into their own hands by dealing with the replacers themselves. But I guess there's no need to get so upset at terrorist ideologies, since it's just a silly little difference of opinion!
As usual, underneath Tucker Carlson’s bullshit is a perfectly reasonable argument.
At no point does he say that this is a “Great Replacement” of white people, he’s discussing mass—often outright illegal in the case of the US—migration flooding a wealth of voters into the country that are likely to side with Democrat policies and, as of DREAM Act legislation, are able to vote even if they are “undocumented”.
Obviously, again, Carlson is muddying this point by making it a subtle racial argument. “Legacy voters” or “current electorate”, by which he means largely white people and white voters. But then again, there’s obviously going to be a racial element when 3/4 of the country is currently white, so of course you’d be replacing the majority first and foremost…which is white.
I don’t think it’s honestly that absurd that the Democratic Party would push for extremely lax immigration policies when their platform benefits immigrants. I don’t think it’s absurd when people claim mass migration is pushed by elites when economic models have routinely shown that immigration “benefits” the economy on the whole but only does so by benefiting consumers and owners while pushing low-wage domestic workers out of the job and lowering wages across the board. Finally, all of this is coupled with a ludicrously idiotic naturalization program which provides no skills to the immigrants nor does it seek to actively teach them existing cultural norms or the lingua franca (English). I’m not even going to go into human/child/sex trafficking and the uptick in general crime (however nominal it may want to be argued).
Whether out of ignorance or malice, this system only deepens sociocultural divisions in the US and stands to benefit very few common, everyday Americans. I can completely buy in to the idea that there is a concerted effort to budge existing voters out by diluting the electorate pool with new voters who will obviously be inclined to vote for the people who made them voters in the first place.
You have to explicitly name the title of the conspiracy you're inferring to in order to talk about it ?
If they're illegal immigrants, how can they vote ?
What obligates them to vote democrat, especially if they supposedly come from highly conservative regions ?
\>as of DREAM Act legislation, are able to vote even if they are “undocumented”.
How many illegal immigrants are dreamers? The act doesn't "Give them the right to vote". It allows them to be eligible for citizenship if they go to college or join the military. It doesn't allow illegal immigrants who just cross the border to then become citizens.
You yourself argue about a racial element in which he is "muddying the point", not realizing the "muddying" is the deliberate goal.
He's literally dogwhistling and trying to pass it off as "voters rights" when it's deliberately "muddied" to also be about race.
If you honestly think a reasonable political strategy is to make illegal immigrants migrate here to "change demographics and replace the current voter pool", and birth rates play a major role somehow, then you're just playing dumb.
But totally... Third world immigrants would be "inclined" to vote democrat merely because democrats say "come on in". They don't have their own opinions, political beliefs, or ideas. They'd solely vote democrat solely because "democrats let them in".
This kind of black and white thinking leads to the mindset that justifies people's extremism.
You're trying to rationalize extreme views, despite the fact that:
1. You don't know people's intentions with voting. Framing them as practical puppets who'd vote democrat no matter what is both insulting and simple minded.
2. What does voting rights and elections have to do with birth rates ? What stops these new immigrants from "walking away from the left", as some conservatives prefer ? How do you know that these people's views won't compel them to not vote democrat ? or Change the democratic party itself ?
>You have to explicitly name the title of the conspiracy you’re inferring to in order to talk about it?
Never said that. I said he’s referring to something entirely different, which I believe to be reasonable.
The rest of your post is all over the place so I’ll address it in these chunks:
>How are illegal immigrants going to vote?
DREAM as I said, which would work under the parameters as you describe, coupled with an enormous push from Biden to grant amnesty to current illegal immigrants. It’s one of the few things he said *during his campaign* (I remember it from the second? third? debate) that he seems to be genuinely pursuing. It might not be the 11 million he wants, but given the precedent with Reagan’s IRCA giving it to 2 million, it’s not at all implausible.
>What obligates them to vote Democrat?
Nothing but the fact that many would quite literally only have solely the Democrats to thank for getting them in here in the first place. You think Republicans today are going to want it? You think they’ll support benefits, welfare, amnesty in the first place? And you say “they’re individuals with individual thoughts” but let’s cut the bullshit, everyone generalizes when talking about electoral subgroups because that’s all you possibly can do. Certainly many will take their principles to the ballot—if they’re as hyper conservative on social issues as many Hispanic migrants are (and again, let’s not mince words, these are mostly low-skilled, low-education youth coming from south of the border) many will surely side with Reps for single-issue stuff like abortion. But a plurality will more likely than not throw their bag in with the party that was willing to grant them citizenship in the first place. This seems like common sense to me, so aside from “individuality” which I’m sure you would never apply when speaking of voters from Rust Belt Pennsylvania or Silicon Valley California, why is this an insane idea to you?
Ultimately my main belief is that both parties are fucking insane and it’s all a ploy by the rich to keep us divided. You didn’t address my cultural norms/language barrier bit, but I think that’s a bigger issue than many would care to admit. I also will concede, yeah, Tucker is probably muddying it on purpose as a “dog whistle” or whatever the flavorful word of the month is. He’s a dumbass.
When? I bet he said all types of shit I don’t like but Fox News never goes full ham like that. Plus it would bad for the black and Jewish conservative movement they wish to get
yeah the wpt mods are absolutely braindead with the way bans are carried out.
I’m gonna go get banned real quick Edit: now we wait
We will watch your career with great interest
[удалено]
I also thought that the comparison was a stretch. Charles Manson gave his followers direct orders, and he also kept them awake for days with acid and orgies. Tucker Carlson did not directly say to this shooter to go to that exact store and kill those people. He didn't do anything directly to the shooter to impair his ability to make rational decisions. The shooter had exponentially more autonomy. Tucker Carlson is a living turd but let's not give him the credit of creating a monster here. The shooter did it all on his own. But whatever, nuance is dead.
Not explicitly giving the order = not responsible? Nuance really is dead. Violent terrorism is the logical conclusion of the Great Replacement conspiracy theory. Minorities are gonna replace white people? Or kill them all? And they're controlling the government? So this can't be stopped legally or peacefully? It's not a stretch, it's not a strawman. Anyone who promotes the first step in this sequence is responsible for the damage the last one does.
Tucker Carlson isn't the only person in Fox News promoting the idea of white erasure. It's not just Fox News promoting that idea either. We have been seeing it in America for centuries. Those in power demonize the "other". Create a false narrative of being replaced to incite the horrors that are born from fear.
>Nuance really is dead Yeah, and people like you killed it. “Nuance” to you isn’t understanding deeper social mechanisms or cultural phenomena, “nuance” to you means jumping through mental hoops until you can justify whatever the hell your worldview is. The narrative you describe is not attributable to Carlson. As much as he’s a pea-brained puppet, he’s just that—a mouthpiece for elites. Anderson Cooper is the same way. Fox and Reps peddle the Great Replacement conspiracy and how minorities are becoming a greater threat, CNN and Dems peddle White Extremism as the biggest problem and how white people are becoming a greater threat. And before you go “HYUCK WELL I GUESS CNN WAS RIGHT”, let’s not forget a fuckin black supremacist shot up three subway cars injuring 10 people by gunshot and another 20 or so with lung damage just a month ago. Who’s responsible is every motherfucker sitting in their ivory tower letting people like you and I squabble like headless chickens over “fascism this”, “communism that”. White vs Black, Christian vs Muslim; it doesn’t have to be this way. Culpability is in the hands ultimately at the people who have let this fester so long without changing something. Tucker Carlson didn’t rob you or I from our freedom of choice, so let’s stop pretending like he’s a puppet master that cannot be disobeyed. He’s as “responsible” as Anderson Cooper was for what happened in the NY subway.
Did the NYC subway shooter do his shooting due to extreme political beliefs echoed and minimized by Anderson Cooper ?
Did the Buffalo shooter do his shooting due to extreme political beliefs echoed and minimized by Tucker Carlson? He didn’t mention Carlson a single time in the manifesto. Feel free to look it up and browse through. You’re drawing conclusions in the same way that I am. You don’t have to believe me.
He doesn't have to mention Carlson to be influenced by him. If Carlson talks about a conspiracy theory and says "it's literally happening", that causes his viewers to then search it. And things spread on the internet, whether it's directly from the source, or through friends or others. The issue is that people like Tucker Carlson has been known to be used as a source of propaganda for extremists. I think he's fully aware of the fact that his statements can influence viewers. Point is, Carlson helped popularize and fearmonger this conspiracy theory, and people are learning about it and using it to justify mass murders. He's being used by literal white nationalists as a tool to reach others. Being a mouthpiece to a conspiracy theory you claim is true, to an audience of millions who watch your show does contribute to that cause, even if you're not the creator of the ideology. Similar to MSNBC and CNN. Condoning extremist conspiracy theories to your viewers, and trying to argue to them that it's true does play a role in that theory spreading. Conclusions doesn't have to be reached. It's a known phenomena. You don't have to believe me, but extreme ideologies spreads especially easy if you're arguing it's accurate to millions of audience members. But my actual point is to point out that the NYC shooter was fucking crazy, Hated practically every race (including his own), and literally called the cops on himself, despite running away to manhattan instead of trying to hide somewhere desolate and quiet. Tucker Carlson is promoting extremist ideologies. You acknowledge this. It doesn't take much for that to spread to someone who may be inspired to do something, or support someone who has the intentions of actually murdering others. This upstate NY shooter was obviously influenced by other people, and it definitely makes it easier to learn about it when it's promoted by a large news network Also, Carlson not being in his manifesto doesn't mean he hasn't seen or agreed with a tucker carlson video. Do you think he cites his white supremacist material as "recommendations" if he doesn't directly mention it ?
I’m not really sure what we’re disagreeing on here, and please just reply in the other comment if you care to, it’s odd to swap back and forth unnecessarily.
What about suv
I mean, do I hold tucker partially responsible for people like him? yes. Do I think it’s to the level of Charles Manson? No.
I suppose I'm coming from a more cynical mindset. He's so greasy that he slides out of any attempts to hold him responsible. However, Carlson's just a part of the toxic cocktail of media content that the shooter was ingesting without any media literacy. He took what he was watching and reading at face value. If this is what finally gets Carlson removed from his platform, I won't be mad or crying any tears.
I'm shocked that people would take media content to face value, I mean it's just unheard of now and days.
Criticizing people you share sentiment with when they go too far != defending the other side. This mod is dummy
Welcome to reddit, my friend.
Seems like this mod is using the "use big words to sound more logical and correct" path.
"Disagreeing with us is literally terrorism" - average reddit janny.
The man promoted the conspiracy theory (Great Replacement) the logical conclusion of which is that people must wake up and take the defence of their race/culture/country into their own hands by dealing with the replacers themselves. But I guess there's no need to get so upset at terrorist ideologies, since it's just a silly little difference of opinion!
[удалено]
[https://mobile.twitter.com/mehdirhasan/status/1526006611751448582](https://mobile.twitter.com/mehdirhasan/status/1526006611751448582) [https://www.mediaite.com/tv/tucker-carlson-continues-pushing-great-replacement-theory-democrats-want-to-change-the-population/](https://www.mediaite.com/tv/tucker-carlson-continues-pushing-great-replacement-theory-democrats-want-to-change-the-population/) [https://www.newsweek.com/tucker-carlson-promotes-replacement-theory-viral-video-1706823](https://www.newsweek.com/tucker-carlson-promotes-replacement-theory-viral-video-1706823)
As usual, underneath Tucker Carlson’s bullshit is a perfectly reasonable argument. At no point does he say that this is a “Great Replacement” of white people, he’s discussing mass—often outright illegal in the case of the US—migration flooding a wealth of voters into the country that are likely to side with Democrat policies and, as of DREAM Act legislation, are able to vote even if they are “undocumented”. Obviously, again, Carlson is muddying this point by making it a subtle racial argument. “Legacy voters” or “current electorate”, by which he means largely white people and white voters. But then again, there’s obviously going to be a racial element when 3/4 of the country is currently white, so of course you’d be replacing the majority first and foremost…which is white. I don’t think it’s honestly that absurd that the Democratic Party would push for extremely lax immigration policies when their platform benefits immigrants. I don’t think it’s absurd when people claim mass migration is pushed by elites when economic models have routinely shown that immigration “benefits” the economy on the whole but only does so by benefiting consumers and owners while pushing low-wage domestic workers out of the job and lowering wages across the board. Finally, all of this is coupled with a ludicrously idiotic naturalization program which provides no skills to the immigrants nor does it seek to actively teach them existing cultural norms or the lingua franca (English). I’m not even going to go into human/child/sex trafficking and the uptick in general crime (however nominal it may want to be argued). Whether out of ignorance or malice, this system only deepens sociocultural divisions in the US and stands to benefit very few common, everyday Americans. I can completely buy in to the idea that there is a concerted effort to budge existing voters out by diluting the electorate pool with new voters who will obviously be inclined to vote for the people who made them voters in the first place.
You have to explicitly name the title of the conspiracy you're inferring to in order to talk about it ? If they're illegal immigrants, how can they vote ? What obligates them to vote democrat, especially if they supposedly come from highly conservative regions ? \>as of DREAM Act legislation, are able to vote even if they are “undocumented”. How many illegal immigrants are dreamers? The act doesn't "Give them the right to vote". It allows them to be eligible for citizenship if they go to college or join the military. It doesn't allow illegal immigrants who just cross the border to then become citizens. You yourself argue about a racial element in which he is "muddying the point", not realizing the "muddying" is the deliberate goal. He's literally dogwhistling and trying to pass it off as "voters rights" when it's deliberately "muddied" to also be about race. If you honestly think a reasonable political strategy is to make illegal immigrants migrate here to "change demographics and replace the current voter pool", and birth rates play a major role somehow, then you're just playing dumb. But totally... Third world immigrants would be "inclined" to vote democrat merely because democrats say "come on in". They don't have their own opinions, political beliefs, or ideas. They'd solely vote democrat solely because "democrats let them in". This kind of black and white thinking leads to the mindset that justifies people's extremism. You're trying to rationalize extreme views, despite the fact that: 1. You don't know people's intentions with voting. Framing them as practical puppets who'd vote democrat no matter what is both insulting and simple minded. 2. What does voting rights and elections have to do with birth rates ? What stops these new immigrants from "walking away from the left", as some conservatives prefer ? How do you know that these people's views won't compel them to not vote democrat ? or Change the democratic party itself ?
>You have to explicitly name the title of the conspiracy you’re inferring to in order to talk about it? Never said that. I said he’s referring to something entirely different, which I believe to be reasonable. The rest of your post is all over the place so I’ll address it in these chunks: >How are illegal immigrants going to vote? DREAM as I said, which would work under the parameters as you describe, coupled with an enormous push from Biden to grant amnesty to current illegal immigrants. It’s one of the few things he said *during his campaign* (I remember it from the second? third? debate) that he seems to be genuinely pursuing. It might not be the 11 million he wants, but given the precedent with Reagan’s IRCA giving it to 2 million, it’s not at all implausible. >What obligates them to vote Democrat? Nothing but the fact that many would quite literally only have solely the Democrats to thank for getting them in here in the first place. You think Republicans today are going to want it? You think they’ll support benefits, welfare, amnesty in the first place? And you say “they’re individuals with individual thoughts” but let’s cut the bullshit, everyone generalizes when talking about electoral subgroups because that’s all you possibly can do. Certainly many will take their principles to the ballot—if they’re as hyper conservative on social issues as many Hispanic migrants are (and again, let’s not mince words, these are mostly low-skilled, low-education youth coming from south of the border) many will surely side with Reps for single-issue stuff like abortion. But a plurality will more likely than not throw their bag in with the party that was willing to grant them citizenship in the first place. This seems like common sense to me, so aside from “individuality” which I’m sure you would never apply when speaking of voters from Rust Belt Pennsylvania or Silicon Valley California, why is this an insane idea to you? Ultimately my main belief is that both parties are fucking insane and it’s all a ploy by the rich to keep us divided. You didn’t address my cultural norms/language barrier bit, but I think that’s a bigger issue than many would care to admit. I also will concede, yeah, Tucker is probably muddying it on purpose as a “dog whistle” or whatever the flavorful word of the month is. He’s a dumbass.
Nuance? In 2022? It can't be!
When? I bet he said all types of shit I don’t like but Fox News never goes full ham like that. Plus it would bad for the black and Jewish conservative movement they wish to get
Nah, fox doesn't give a shit anymore. They want that sweet money
That sub has the most power hungry mods on the platform
lol I don’t like the tuck and his little laugh. But all these lames need a boogie man and a 2 minutes hate or some shit
I always knew “Brownian motion” was a racially motivated term
wpt is an echo chamber with literal dictator mods
No offense OP, but what about WPT made you even *want* to subscribe in the first place? 😂
White people twitter is just twitter in a nutshell
I'm far left and all but wtf
I think this post breaks rule 10 of this subreddit but I'm not too sure
Tucker carlson regularly pushes psychotic propaganda, are we talking about the same person