So I'm assuming that Sinclair will be demanding that Tucker apologize and donate and that the FCC will be threatening to cancel his podcast.

top 95 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 161 points 1 year ago (1 child)
  • [–] 18 points 1 year ago*

    I was just thinking this is the perfect meme in this context.

    Not only a good point... He dared to go against supreme leader, despite his much he normally licks boots, and when other more moderate people are licking boot about all this

    I'm confused, but happy to see it.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 108 points 1 year ago (13 children)

    What fucking bizarro world have I stepped into where fash-lite bowtie man is making sense

  • source
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 30 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Tucker's a smart guy with a clever tongue. He can lay out an exhaustive, reasoned, rationalist case for basic civil liberties. And then he can come back a day later to lay out an exhaustive, reasoned, rationalist case against them.

    Just depends on which side of the line he's standing. Dude's a talk radio mercenary. He'll fight for whichever side he thinks will turn him a profit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] 29 points 1 year ago (1 child)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    I've noticed this happening more often than I would have imagined, actually. There are some times where Trump or one of his sycophants will make an off-the-cuff remark that is actually, genuinely, a good and logical thing to do. it doesn't happen that often, but it does happen. The bizarre part is that when that idea fails to manifest media coverage detailing how bad it is, they just... give up on it. It's like the conservative political philosophy has completely morphed into being a contrarian force against liberalism, in spite of whatever their personal beliefs might be. If democrats are ambivalent on an issue, so are they.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago

    He was full strength fashy before 2021. He was the one floating a lot of these ideas to see how they play, like locking up your political rivals or news media.

    I suspect that it turned out that Carlson's mean words towards his superiors at Fox News did him in more than anything. They held grudges after being called dumb fucking cunts or whatever and took the excuse to ask him.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)
  • [–] 21 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    This comment is almost entirely divorced from reality. Just as bad as the nonsense that trumper dipshits spew. Ben fucking Shapiro has spoke out against US involvement in the Middle East? Lol, pretty much his sole life mission is to ensure that that continues. Gtfo with this shit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

    i wonder what your response will be once you learn that marjoree taylor green has tried to stop weapons shipments to isreal, but aoc helped stop her... twice

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    [–] 198 points 1 year ago (15 children)

    I am floored that I agree with that piece of shit, but… here we are.

    What a weird time to live in.

  • source
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 89 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    Tucker is scared because kimmel and other media personalities are getting nuked. That's his money flow at risk, nothing else.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 49 points 1 year ago

    Ya know there a principle I am rather fond of, doing good for bad reasons is still good. While Carlson may be a shitstain undeserving of his kneecaps and while he may be doing a good thing for bad reasons, well I'll take what I can get. We are effectively shrieking into the void like the banshee outside of my window, nobody hears us but they do hear Carlson.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 25 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Probably, but it's smart to take allies where you can find them. A lot of right-wingers pay attention to Carlson, and his stance is hitting where left-leaning sources have no pull.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    Plus if successful at turning us from our allies based on misplaced motivation, they would just lie about those motivations more to us. Then lie to the other side about our own motivations for stuff we agree with them on.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    While his general rhetoric may be aligned, his engagement is driven by people that want validation against those "elite libs" that are saying things they don't like.

    Without those voices in the room, even if there's an audience that agrees with his words, that audience doesn't need him anymare.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 25 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    Similar thing for me recently. Learned musk is against collective shouts censorship. Made me really evaluate why I was against it. Still against it. Censorship limits freedom of speech but so does deplatforming the censors. Weird times

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 43 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Sure, but sometimes the enemy of your enemy is still your enemy. I agree with this one thing that Tucker said. I vehemently disagree with pretty much every single other thing he says, or has said.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    Yeah same in my situation basically. Also he wants to harass and censor collective shout. It's not the right way to address this. ACLU already looking into financial censorship and payment procssors. That's the way I want it handled. Legally and sanely

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    The grammar is ambiguous, FYI, of if you meant the censorship done by collective shout or the censorship being done to collective shout.

    It doesn't impact my reply, but I figured I'd let you know. :)

    I'm against government censorship in all circumstances outside the cliche "you can't threaten people or spread injurious falsehoods".

    I'm okay with private entities not giving people a platform if they aren't a defacto institution. Credit card companies and financial services should be agnostic to which legal businesses they process payments and hold assets for. Much like how shipping companies are agnostic to what's in your package, beyond what's necessary to move it safely.
    If you're needed for society to function, I want you to blindly service society, even if people I dislike also get service.

    I don't want to be in a place where every platform needs to accept all participants as valid. There's plenty of ways to share your viewpoint.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    That ignores the fact that the government leans on these people behind the scenes. So it is a thinly veiled end run around government censorship, as we have seen with social media, Homeland Security giving lists of names for them to ban for other reasons.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago

    I wouldn't say it's ignoring it. I'm incredulous that DHS would pressure Facebook to cancel an account or something for the same reason I'm not as bothered by it happening: it doesn't have real consequences.

    If the government censors you, it can take your money or your freedom. Not only does it have much higher stakes, it has stakes you can't get around. You can't go to a platform that doesn't mind and keep going.

    If the government leans on a company, first of all that's still government censorship and it's not legal for the government to get a company to do what it cannot. If the specifics of the behavior are legal, it's still government censorship and wrong (with aforementioned caveats).
    That being said, the consequence of that type of censorship is loss of a social media account. You can find another venue and all they can do is keep asking people to remove the content. If someone refuses or you host overseas, there's not really anything they can do.

    There's a benefit to society, in my opinion, for people to reject an idea. Refusing to help someone spread a message is about the most passive way to do that.

    I've worked in the webhosting industry. If someone has a Nazi website and they need tech support, you need to ask yourself if you're willing to take that support request or if you're letting your manager know you're not gonna help that message.
    If the employees at a company don't want to help you and it's not unjust discrimination, I have a really hard time saying that it's wrong to tell Nazis to take their website elsewhere.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I agree 100% Sorry I was ambiguous in my last reply. I am against all censorship both by and against collective shout

    I don't think censoring collective shout helps any of this

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    I'm not aware of the specifics of that group to know how I feel.

    My feelings are more born from looking at webhosting and hate/harassment websites. I have a really hard time saying it's wrong to take down a Nazi website.
    I don't think the government should be able to, because as abhorrent as it is it's still a political position and protected. But if the people you're paying to host your shit don't want anything to do with you and it's not unjust discrimination, I don't think society gains anything by forcing them to keep it up.

    I also don't think that applies to monopolies, quasi or defacto.

    I think there's a benefit to telling hateful groups and people they aren't welcome in civil society. The alternative is to say that there's no line at which society can tell you to gtfo, and people just need to tolerate you no matter what.
    Shunning or deplatforming is how you do that without violence.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 55 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    "Finally! I've finished my kill-bot. Come, gather round, as I unveil it to the world"

    "But Professor Killington"

    "Yes, adorable, one-legged, orphan Timmy?"

    "Why did you make a kill-bot?"

    "Well, so it would indiscriminately murder anything and everything that moves, of course"

    "But professor, that sounds dangerous"

    "Don't be a fucking retard Timmy. I know what I'm doing"

    "O-okay Professor"

    "Now everyone gather round as I turn on the killbot for the very first time, and be amazed as it makes me pancakes"

    flips switch

    "OH NO, STOP, STOP, STOP KILLING ME, KILL-BOT OH MY GOD, MY SPLEEN, OH, IF ONLY SOMEBODY COULD HAVE FORRSEEN THIS TERRIBLE TURN OF EVENTS".

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 25 points 1 year ago

    Timmy would go on to run for Congress on an anti killbot policy. He would lose to a bigoted blowhard who insisted on the right for all people to own killbots to make them pancakes.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 46 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    He just realized that he is NOT SAFE

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 43 points 1 year ago

    Ugh Fucker Carlson making sense. I hate this world.

  • source
  • [–] 42 points 1 year ago

    Guess someone forgot to send tucker his check.

  • source
  • [–] 34 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    A broken Nazi Russian asset asshole clock is right once a day

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 30 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    They keep wanting a civil war between leftwingers and rightwingers, but seems more likely they will have a civil war amongst the rightwingers themselves. 🤦‍♂️

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    Could well happen yeah. Though it also seems likely, given how things have gone so far, that an assassin could be on camera with a Nazi swastika on their clothes and immediately after you'd have the right wing media spreading far and wide, "Here's how the Nazis (National SOCIALISTS) were leftists, actually"

    Maybe some shit about Nazis being pro trans too, I dunno. At this point it feels like they could actually say that and enough people would lap it up

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    “Here’s how the Nazis (National SOCIALISTS) were leftists, actually”

    They already do say that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago*

    Yeah true to an extent, of course, but I mean them going full on with it like they did with claiming the Charlie Kirk assassin was a leftist and trying to link him to transness in any way possible

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 54 points 1 year ago

    Huh, whatever happened to loving how things are done in Putinist Russia, Tucker?

  • source
  • [–] 26 points 1 year ago

    Good for Tucker. Rare time I say it.

  • source
  • [–] 25 points 1 year ago

    Holy shit I agree with Tucker Carlson?

  • source
  • [–] 20 points 1 year ago

    I Hate This Timeline.

    I agreed with Cucker Tarlson and Marge Sporktoes on things! Wtf???

  • source
  • [–] 40 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    So now he cares about such principles...

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 18 points 1 year ago (1 child)
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago

    Holy shit, Tucker dares to go against Trump.

  • source
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago

    This man doesn't actually meaningfully believe anything that he says. That said, what he is saying here is true.

  • source
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Did his funding change? Why all the sudden change? You got the fucker there.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    It's something all the right wing grifters will realize at some point.

    These people have no purpose if Trump forces all the news networks in the country to say whatever he wants. He no longer requires any of their services as mouthpieces.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    I think Charlie Kirk ironically would be the first one to balk at the supression of leftist rhetoric.

    Without opposition looking to make him look like an asshat while he thinks he's making them look like an asshat, these pundits lose their 'edge'. They have nothing to rant against, and without ranting, what's their draw, how do they make a living being right wing assholes that don't actually do anything or have to take accountability for anything?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 35 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    Interesting. I don't know who he is, but based on (part of) the Russian shopping video I saw of him yesterday, where he was excited at what everything a Russian supermarket has to offer, finally cumming into his pants after finding that Russia has bread, I wouldn't expect much.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    I only saw a clip of that. In the piece, did he ever disclose how much a typical Russian makes in a year?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 28 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Someone did detail that information and response and he had spent like more than a Russian makes in a month at that grocery store, which is geared for the Bourgeois there. Not a working man's store.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 1 year ago

    Heartbreaking: The Worst Person You Know Just Made a Great Point

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago

    Ahw fuck, why does it have to be Carlson? I hate it when dumb evil mother fuckers like him make actual good point

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    If he ends up getting Kirked over this, I'll gladly nudge him over the line to "on the right side of history". Won't mourn his passing though, he's peddled enough bullshit to make himself irredeemable as decent human being.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    They'll come for him soon enough.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    And a broken watch is correct twice a day.

  • source
  • Oh NOW he's gone too far?? Fuck. You.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    "You hope that a year from now, the turmoil we're seeing in the aftermath of his murder won't be leveraged to bring hate speech laws to this country,” Carlson said Wednesday

    Yeah it would really be a shame if free speech were to be trampled at some nebulous point in the future. Imagine if it were to happen now!

    “And trust me, if it is, if that does happen, there is never a more justified moment for civil disobedience than that, ever. And there never will be,” the pundit added.

    The most justified possible cause for civil disobedience in all of human history has been and will only ever be... hate speech laws. Jeez. I'm a white guy and even that level of privilege and arrogance is a little crazy.

    “Because if they can tell you what to say, they're telling you what to think...There is nothing they can't do to you because they don't consider you human.”

    He seems so close to getting it. So damn close. But considering the right's propensity for projection, it's probably just an illusion.

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago

    I never thought I'd see the day where I agree with Fucker Carlson. Jesus.

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    LOL, no shit Tucker!

    Your kind ALWAYS wanted to do that, no matter what the excuse is.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (5 children)
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (4 children)
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)
    1. There's no such thing as a "strike card".

    2. You don't need to give anybody your name and phone number to join a strike or engage in protest. Why are they demanding sign-ups at all? Why do they need my personal identifying information? If it's a strike, name the day and time.

    3. Who's behind this website? It's very unclear ("two friends") but also The Black Panther Party? This seems sus, like media ragebait for a future FOX News story

    4. My first clue: the site is all a little TOO slick

    This is either conservative ragebait or everyone will be signed up for some Organizing for America spam list. Worst case, you'll be on an FBI list and named as an "economic terrorist" or some bullshit

    Could I wrong about all this? Sure, and I'll wish them luck and success, but they sure as shit ain't getting my identifying information

  • source
  • parent
  • How do you know Tucker Carlson is grifting? His lips are moving. Be careful, fellas. You know who this goon is. Just because you agree with him, doesnt mean there isnt an agenda at play with this fucker.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (3 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    Stating the obvious to hoard in people... While still being a fascist himself. Who could have seen this coming...

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    Whhaattttt?

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›
    22 comments in c/trump_watch@lemmy.world view that post
    8 comments in c/politics@beehaw.org view that post
    2 comments in c/conservative@sh.itjust.works view that post