Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On April 25 2023 00:56 JimmiC wrote: I sure did not see this coming. Fox News parted ways with Tucker Carlson. I'm sad to say he will do fine on where ever he goes with even less rules and more ability to generate hate through manipulation. I also am not optimistic that this will make fox take being honest about the news more of a priority, but maybe?
Just damage control, I'm sure. "Hey we got sued and lost, we fired the one person who caused the whole problem" is pretty standard corporate maneuvering. Diffuse responsibility as much as possible so that lawsuits are near impossible, and if one still happens re-concentrate that responsibility onto a single person and claim that fixes it. The entire network leadership structure that condoned the misinformation and propaganda in the first place still exists.
Still cause for some small celebration. Maybe OAN scoops him up and they sink, as well. It would be the gift that keeps on giving.
Oh, to be a fly in Rupert Murdoch's office last weekend. Seems like this was a decision finalized not too long ago because there were no public signs Carlson would be fired. Heck, he even signed off last Friday saying he'd be back on Monday.
I'd think Murdoch and/or Fox's executives realized that he was a business risk because he was partially responsible for costing them almost $800 million in the Dominion lawsuit. It must have been pretty bad if Fox was willing to sever their cash cow and drop their stock for this.
Maybe he'll go to OAN or Newsmax, or his own YouTube channel. But it's a far cry from the audience of Fox.
A slew of material was uncovered during pre-trial discovery that implicated Carlson. More information could be out there that could be legally damaging for Fox as it stares down more defamation cases.
On April 25 2023 01:27 PhoenixVoid wrote: Oh, to be a fly in Rupert Murdoch's office last weekend. Seems like this was a decision finalized not too long ago because there were no public signs Carlson would be fired. Heck, he even signed off last Friday saying he'd be back on Monday.
I'd think Murdoch and/or Fox's executives realized that he was a business risk because he was partially responsible for costing them almost $800 billion in the Dominion lawsuit. It must have been pretty bad if Fox was willing to sever their cash cow and drop their stock for this.
Maybe he'll go to OAN or Newsmax, or his own YouTube channel. But it's a far cry from the audience of Fox.
Exactly, Not so much damage control about what already happened but for the future. Having to settle for 800 million because of Carlson showed Fox that despite him bringing in ratings he can cost them to much.
They don't want a repeat of this happening again for the next election.
And yes Carlson will likely find a home in some corner of the internet but it won't be in front of anywhere near an audience the size of Fox.
Tucker is an easily replaceable product, just like Glenn Beck or O'Reilly. None of those people are thinkers. Fox will be fine without him, it's not that hard to find someone else to read that crap off a prompter in a convincing manner.
They probably need to do some pay cuts as a result of the settlement and Tucker saw his personal brand as too big to accept that.
On April 21 2023 08:29 KwarK wrote: [quote] It’s not reasonable to expect to agree with every dollar of taxpayer money spent.
Right, it’s reasonable to expect disagreement on how tax dollars are spent
And if the outrage was about "is paying people to read to children in libraries the right thing to do" that would be a valid point. But that's not what all this has been about.
I can’t imagine why anyone would have a general opposition to using public funds for children’s story hour. It’s clear that the only oppose it because they think it’s inappropriate for children. There’s also endless other things that are deemed inappropriate for children that I’m sure they would also oppose if efforts to include it in children’s story hour existed
People think religion is fucked. Still churches can exist in this country.
Get used to not getting your way.
The feelings of parents being afraid of drag men doing something bad to their children by virtue of existing are just snowflake things. They have no basis in reality but stem from the conditions they create for themselves. For the understanding of manhood that is so toxic and one dimensional. It's a self inflicted misery. Society has no need nor right to suppress that but shall also be unaffected by it, inasmuch as it should not cater to those extremists.
People should also be allowed to object if any tax dollars are going to fund religious themed story hours for children, don’t you agree?
Also I suspect the bigger objection to drag queen story hour has less to do with fearing the drag queen will throw down the book and start fondling all the children and more to do with being against exposing small children to different ideas about gender. At least that would be my concern as someone that believes there’s a social contagion aspect to the explosion in the youth that identify as nonbinary, trans or gender fluid.
Of course I agree. Though the objection being what exactly in this case? It cant be exposing children to gender as there's fuck all outrage about blue pants and pink dresses - unless the boy wears the dress. Gender stereotypes are no problem but being out of the norm is? Fuck no thats no basis for objection. There is no evidence that anything harmful is taking place. Should public policy follow data or feelings?
I suspect there’s a lot of things that we don’t consider appropriate for children that we don’t have data that quantifies harm. Is your position by default what you have offered here which is “show me evidence of emotional scarring to children, otherwise if you don’t like it you can leave the country.” If you want to spend the tax dollars on the drag queens shouldn’t you be the one to show the data of some benefit of having drag queens read to children?
Like what? And no, it is not. What it entails though, is that with a severe restriction of a freedom, there has to be a robust basis on which grounds it can be restricted. This is not given with drag story time. There is zero basis for that. There are no arguments brought forth here as to why it is shouldn't be appropriate to have children listen to a stereotypical-womenlike dressed person.
Let’s not forget that this conversation started with me saying people should be allowed to do whatever they want but if tax dollars are being spent then others are entitled to criticize it. There’s no “severe restrictions” on freedom there.
When I go on YouTube and search drag Queen story hour one of the top results is a drag Queen in platform heels and fishnet stockings innocently reading to kids. To Elroi’s point, I think conservatives would think it’s inappropriate attire for a children’s story hour regardless if it’s a man or a woman wearing that. On the contrary, I think the only reason people on the left are tripping over themselves to argue that this is totally appropriate is only because it’s an opportunity to show how tolerant and open-minded they are. If it were a woman teacher wearing that I don’t think anyone would support her if she were reprimanded for her attire. I also doubt there is any hard data to conclude that platform heels and fishnet stockings are quantifiably harmful to children yet it’s still not typically welcomed in our society.
Of course you can criticise it. Never said any different. The question is why you're criticising. And I haven't heard nothing from you in that regard in this convo yet?
I see you're busy with conjecture about why people are confronting the hypocrisy of conservatives purporting drag story time is harmful for children, I can't tell you about their reason though.
Also, speak for yourself. In the society I want it doesn't matter what you're wearing as a private citizen.
On April 25 2023 02:26 maybenexttime wrote: Calling it now: Tucker Carlson will be Trump's running mate. ;-)
All jokes aside, he's actually dangerously eloquent and quick on his feet during debates and in front of actual audiences. I fucking hate him with a passion, and on Fox News he always came off as the living embodiment of the Dunning-Kruger effect, but he would absolutely curbstomp any Democratic candidate in an actual 1v1 debate (and in a way that comes off as a much more legitimate trouncing than the way Trump just derails and yells and calls people names).
On April 25 2023 02:26 maybenexttime wrote: Calling it now: Tucker Carlson will be Trump's running mate. ;-)
All jokes aside, he's actually dangerously eloquent and quick on his feet during debates and in front of actual audiences. I fucking hate him with a passion, and on Fox News he always came off as the living embodiment of the Dunning-Kruger effect, but he would absolutely curbstomp any Democratic candidate in an actual 1v1 debate (and in a way that comes off as a much more legitimate trouncing than the way Trump just derails and yells and calls people names).
I dont think he would at all. Dont confuse his controlled tv environment with a debate.
On April 25 2023 02:26 maybenexttime wrote: Calling it now: Tucker Carlson will be Trump's running mate. ;-)
All jokes aside, he's actually dangerously eloquent and quick on his feet during debates and in front of actual audiences. I fucking hate him with a passion, and on Fox News he always came off as the living embodiment of the Dunning-Kruger effect, but he would absolutely curbstomp any Democratic candidate in an actual 1v1 debate (and in a way that comes off as a much more legitimate trouncing than the way Trump just derails and yells and calls people names).
I dont think he would at all. Dont confuse his controlled tv environment with a debate.
He doesnt get pushed back at all on his show.
Oh, I know. I said during debates and actual audiences, and I meant that. I don't mean his Fox News shows/viewers; I mean third-party locations where he's actually having a conversation with (or against) someone on the left, like this one:
I disagree with most of what Tucker said on stage, but he can absolutely sound like he brings a cooler hand to balance out Trump's rage, a more reliably conservative/libertarian mindset to Trump's volatility, and the Fox News viewership back to Trump. I would be particularly worried about how a Trump/Carlson ticket would reunite the right that has been slightly fractured into Fox News viewers vs. people moving to the right of Fox News.
To be honest, the tickets I'd be most worried about - as someone who wants Democrats to win - is probably Trump/DeSantis and Trump/Carlson, as that's a pretty decent setup for a Trump victory and potentially 1-2 terms of a President DeSantis or President Carlson. DeSantis/Carlson would be rough too, although I think Carlson would stay out of the primary so as to not dilute the non-Trump votes that DeSantis could get on his own. It's hard to have a bigger power couple (for conservative voters) than anything involving those three, imo.
The LA Times says Carlson was fired because Rupert Murdoch was concerned about two things: Carlson pushing a story that Jan. 6 was a conspiracy by government agencies like the FBI and a discrimination lawsuit from a former producer who alleged Carlson bullied her and said anti-Semitic comments on the job.
So, if true, nothing to do with the Dominion lawsuit.
Yeah he's actually really good there. In a way that debate makes me respect him more and less at the same time - more because he's clearly a smart cookie, and less, because the fox tucker carlson is deliberately calibrated to give a message significantly different from what he's putting out here, especially in the 'we need a unified country' 'but here is a program where I'm telling you how ridiculous the other group is' segment.
On April 25 2023 07:08 Liquid`Drone wrote: Yeah he's actually really good there. In a way that debate makes me respect him more and less at the same time - more because he's clearly a smart cookie, and less, because the fox tucker carlson is deliberately calibrated to give a message significantly different from what he's putting out here, especially in the 'we need a unified country' 'but here is a program where I'm telling you how ridiculous the other group is' segment.
On April 25 2023 07:08 Liquid`Drone wrote: Yeah he's actually really good there. In a way that debate makes me respect him more and less at the same time - more because he's clearly a smart cookie, and less, because the fox tucker carlson is deliberately calibrated to give a message significantly different from what he's putting out here, especially in the 'we need a unified country' 'but here is a program where I'm telling you how ridiculous the other group is' segment.
That's pretty much exactly how I feel too.
No one on fox news believes the bullshit they peddle. Yet they peddle it to the masses anyway.
They are all truly despicable people. I cannot see how anyone can respect them less.
Don Lemon on the other hand, seems to be in more trouble. I wonder where he will go next. Unlike Carlson, he was no longer a prime time host when he got fired.
On April 25 2023 02:26 maybenexttime wrote: Calling it now: Tucker Carlson will be Trump's running mate. ;-)
I'll go with Tucker Carlson to RT
He would lose most of his value to the Kremlin. Right now he's portrayed as an "American journalist representing the non-mainstream views of many Americans". If he joined RT, he'd be reduced to an American mouthpiece of the Kremlin.
On April 25 2023 02:26 maybenexttime wrote: Calling it now: Tucker Carlson will be Trump's running mate. ;-)
All jokes aside, he's actually dangerously eloquent and quick on his feet during debates and in front of actual audiences. I fucking hate him with a passion, and on Fox News he always came off as the living embodiment of the Dunning-Kruger effect, but he would absolutely curbstomp any Democratic candidate in an actual 1v1 debate (and in a way that comes off as a much more legitimate trouncing than the way Trump just derails and yells and calls people names).
Oh, I know. I think they'd have a very good shot against Biden, who I think should not even be running. He is clearly not as sharp as he used to be.
EPT
