Jump to content

Tucker Carlson Tonight


atomheartbevo

Recommended Posts

Surprisingly, or maybe not, Tucker is catching some flak and losing advertisers  

Tucker once again confuses the concept of free speech (hint: advertisers bailing is not impacting your free speech)

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/tucker-carlson-responds-to-his-immigration-critics-were-not-intimidated-well-continue-to-tell-the-truth

Quote

We’ve talked a lot on this show about the threat to free speech. It turns out it’s very real.

Quote

Those who won’t shut up get silenced. You’ve seen it a million times. It happens all the time. The enforcers scream “racist!” on Twitter until everyone gets intimidated, and changes the subject to the Russia investigation or some other distraction.

It’s a tactic. A well-worn one. Nobody thinks it's real. And it won’t work with this show. We’re not intimidated. We plan to try to say what’s true until the last day. And the truth is, unregulated mass immigration has badly hurt this country’s natural landscape.

Hmmm...I guess all those regulations Trump had rolled back are making things cleaner while it’s the brown people destroying our landscape?  And twitter is not a free speech issue  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:
 

Hmmm...I guess all those regulations Trump had rolled back are making things cleaner while it’s the brown people destroying our landscape?  And twitter is not a free speech issue  

 

 

 

But without the brown people, who will keep up our landscape?  Talk about  conundrums!

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m generally in favor of a culture of free speech, where we’re encouraged to voice even unpopular opinions freely and we’re able to disagree without losing our minds. I didn’t think shutting down Alex Jones was a social good (despite him having no redeeming values) even if YouTube and twitter had the right. I see it as a negative to shut down unpopular voices even when we have that right. 

With advertisers it’s different though. The relationship is different. They are paying for the privilege of being embarrassed. If it’s going to hurt the bottom line and it violates the values of the company, they have a responsibility to distance. Free market and all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Mole said:

I didn’t think shutting down Alex Jones was a social good (despite him having no redeeming values) even if YouTube and twitter had the right. I see it as a negative to shut down unpopular voices even when we have that right.  

He wasn't shut down. He is operating right now. You can go to his website and buy his brain pills and watch his ramblings and no one is stopping him.

Neither YouTube nor Twitter are operating for any sense of social good. Both of them are social ills and profoundly socially destructive. Their decisions to keep Jones off their platform has nothing to do with promoting a social good; all they are doing is managing their revenue and employees.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

 

Neither YouTube nor Twitter are operating for any sense of social good. Both of them are social ills and profoundly socially destructive. 

 

They aren't either of those things. They are neutral and would not exist without the content that is created by their users.  Just as guns don't kill people, YouTube and Twitter don't, either.  People kill people.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

He wasn't shut down. He is operating right now. You can go to his website and buy his brain pills and watch his ramblings and no one is stopping him.

Neither YouTube nor Twitter are operating for any sense of social good. Both of them are social ills and profoundly socially destructive. Their decisions to keep Jones off their platform has nothing to do with promoting a social good; all they are doing is managing their revenue and employees.

I’m not concerned with their intent, just that it represented a small step away from a healthy society. They had the right to do so and it was probably In their interests. That doesn’t make it something to cheer on. That’s besides the point here though. Refusing to pay to be embarrassed has nothing to do with any culture of free speech.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

 

They aren't either of those things. They are neutral and would not exist without the content that is created by their users.  Just as guns don't kill people, YouTube and Twitter don't, either.  People kill people.   

You should probably do some reading on YouTube's algorithms. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

So Facebook, YoutTube, Twitter, Instagram, Pinterest, reddit, surlyhorns.com, Amazon's self-publishing model, all should be either a) censored b) watched over by a committee to determine what is vetted as acceptable and what is evil or c) left unchecked 

What caused you to leap to such a conclusion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

Any open/free platform can be used for any number of purposes and evil is subjective, politically speaking. Especially politically speaking where people say "evil" when talking about everything from the color of a Christmas tree all the way to a 7 year old dying in a child cage and everything in-between. Most especially all the things in-between.

If YouTube has to publish every rant regardless of content then bakers have to bake cakes for every wedding, gay or otherwise.

  • Like 5
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

26 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

So Facebook, YoutTube, Twitter, Instagram, Pinterest, reddit, surlyhorns.com, Amazon's self-publishing model, all should be either a) censored b) watched over by a committee to determine what is vetted as acceptable and what is evil or c) left unchecked

 

Why does being an online entity grant immunity to common sense? If I yell fire in a crowded theater (in other words deliberately and cause injury), I get prosecuted. But if I do the online equivalent, its just free speech?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

This comment: "Neither YouTube nor Twitter are operating for any sense of social good. Both of them are social ills and profoundly socially destructive"

paired with

"Providing a platform to evil is to be an accessory to evil."

 

Any open/free platform can be used for any number of purposes and evil is subjective, politically speaking. Especially politically speaking where people say "evil" when talking about everything from the color of a Christmas tree all the way to a 7 year old dying in a child cage and everything in-between. Most especially all the things in-between.

I thought it was the liberals who were morally subjective?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

IHOP, Ancestory.com,  Jaguar, Just For Men, and a bunch of others just announced they are bailing on Tucker.   

Is his show now on a deathwatch?

or can he get by advertising Trump teddy bears and gold coins?

Tucker should just get fully on board the GOP train, and take his sponsorships and pay directly from these guys:

LYADP4EMKZDN3EZOP7PYIPEPCE.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Mole said:

I’m not concerned with their intent, just that it represented a small step away from a healthy society. They had the right to do so and it was probably In their interests. That doesn’t make it something to cheer on. That’s besides the point here though. Refusing to pay to be embarrassed has nothing to do with any culture of free speech.

I mean, YouTube et Al kicking Infowars to the curb also fits in with "not paying to be embarrassed". Hosting content online isn't cheap, especially when it's 1080p60fps video that's hours on end. If that content isn't elligible for YouTube's monetization, or the content creation doesn't want to monetize it, YouTube is eating the hosting cost of that video. 

Them kicking Infowars off is just them simply not wanting to pay out of their own pocket to be embarrassed. 

Nobody is taking away Alex Jones ability to say his own brand of crazy, YouTube just isn't letting him do it on their platform. As is their right, because they're a private business and they aren't discriminating against a protected group. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

IHOP, Ancestory.com,  Jaguar, Just For Men, and a bunch of others just announced they are bailing on Tucker.   

Is his show now on a deathwatch?

or can he get by advertising Trump teddy bears and gold coins?

 

No.  Same thing happened with Inghram. Some big shot from Fox said then that they dont depend solely on advertising dollars and can get by on what they earn on cable subscriptions until things like this blow over.  Unless something's changed since then, they've made it clear they wont be influenced by boycotts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mole said:

I’m generally in favor of a culture of free speech, where we’re encouraged to voice even unpopular opinions freely and we’re able to disagree without losing our minds. I didn’t think shutting down Alex Jones was a social good (despite him having no redeeming values) even if YouTube and twitter had the right. I see it as a negative to shut down unpopular voices even when we have that right. 

With advertisers it’s different though. The relationship is different. They are paying for the privilege of being embarrassed. If it’s going to hurt the bottom line and it violates the values of the company, they have a responsibility to distance. Free market and all.

I'd generally agree but Jones wasn't banned because of what he was saying.  There are still plenty of right wing lunatics on Twitter and YouTube just as nutty as him.  He broke the terms of service.  He was also warned before he was banned (at least from Twitter) and chose not to change his behavior.

Furthermore, he has publicly confronted and harassed the CEO of Twitter.  That probably didnt help his case.  If I'm a restaurant owner and some lunatic shows up and screams and harasses me, I might just ban him from my establishment and not feel bad about it.  Free speech doesnt give you the right to harass people without consequences.

Edited by Tom
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

IHOP, Ancestory.com,  Jaguar, Just For Men, and a bunch of others just announced they are bailing on Tucker.   

Is his show now on a deathwatch?

or can he get by advertising Trump teddy bears and gold coins?

Ancestry doesn't surprise me. As I've mentioned here before, they are frequently the butt of jokes and for many reasons it's understandable, but Mormons as a whole are the one Christian denomination I have seen in my experience to be perfectly willing to bail on the GOP for what they have been doing recently. I'm friends with several Mormon families in my little slice of suburbia and every last one of them refused to vote for Trump and have been pretty vocal about being horrified by the recent treatment of immigrants.

From an outside perspective I think American Christendom should take a long look in the mirror when the group that believes an angel guided a guy to Jesus tablets in upstate New York is the principled and reasoned portion of your universe.

28 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

Rest easy everyone, the offended Twitter mob is out for blood. I watched this live and didn’t think twice about his comments, nor did my wife for that matter. 

Well I know I'm shocked that Chrispy didn't think twice about someone calling immigrants dirty.

Edited by Huckleberry
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

Rest easy everyone, the offended Twitter mob is out for blood. I watched this live and didn’t think twice about his comments, nor did my wife for that matter. 

how very unsurprising this post is. you're a terrible human being. 

and that's just because you watch tucker carlson with your wife.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Ancestry doesn't surprise me. As I've mentioned here before, they are frequently the butt of jokes and for many reasons it's understandable, but Mormons as a whole are the one Christian denomination I have seen in my experience to be perfectly willing to bail on the GOP for what they have been doing recently. I'm friends with several Mormon families in my little slice of suburbia and every last one of them refused to vote for Trump and have been pretty vocal about being horrified by the recent treatment of immigrants.

From an outside perspective I think American Christendom should take a long look in the mirror when the group that believes an angel guided a guy to Jesus tablets in upstate New York is the principled and reasoned portion of your universe.

Well I know I'm shocked that Chrispy didn't think twice about someone calling immigrants dirty.

He seemed to be referencing the large group of migrants in these caravans that are living in their own filth and wreaking havoc on Tijuana. 

  • Like 1
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

how very unsurprising this post is. you're a terrible human being. 

and that's just because you watch tucker carlson with your wife.

I’ve been called worse. 

She’s not a cable news person by any stretch. But if we get the kids down in a timely manner we’ll catch Tucker from time to time. 

  • Like 1
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

Meh, she’s more sensitive to feelings in general. If she didn’t perk up her ears, then this seems blown out of proportion. 

If your wife is watching Tucker Carlson with you on the couch, she's probably too busy daydreaming of a better life to pay attention. Good lord. 

 

 

 

  • Like 4
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

If your wife is watching Tucker Carlson with you on the couch, she's probably too busy daydreaming of a better life to pay attention. Good lord. 

 

 

 

She’s welcome to leave, I’ve already explained to her that my chidren’s next Mom will be in her 20’s. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jesus Christ. Winding down a long day of daily routines, work, commuting, and kids shit, and then you decide that a good way to tie a bow on the day is to watch cable TV news yak yak daily outrage bullshit? 

To each their own, but that sounds like hell on earth. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...