• Tucker Carlson calls women extremely primitive, excuses rape in unearthed audio
    43 replies, posted
So, what is the social statute of limitations on being a racist/sexist cunt? 8 years? 5 years? when's the cut-off before there are consequences for his actions?
There's not too much to defend because you make these huge vague claims that are almost impossible to even grab hold of. Just to be clear, you claimed: 1) "If anything we [white people] were little more than snazzy vikings who would use any excuse or pretext to burn, loot, plunder or profit." This is just nonsense. Were the Greek and Latin thinkers who laid the foundation of modern thought "nothing but snazzy vikings?" Clearly not. 2) "Europe didn't catapult ahead of the world, the world was set back by an asshat named Genghis" Lots of places weren't "set back" by Genghis, including, but not limited to: The Indian subcontinent, Africa, The Americas, much of Europe, Japan, the huge island chains off the coast of east asia, etc. Your simplistic statement also ignores the roadblocks hit by all those other locations as well. In many ways, Europe most certainly "catapulted" ahead of the world in many ways. 3) "All the ideas of the enlightenment came from the middle east we tried so desperately to destroy." This is also nonsense. The vast majority of the "enlightenment ideas" found their foundation from Greek and Latin thought. Yes, the majority of Greek manuscripts were rediscovered in Arabic, but they weren't original ideas of the Islamic Empires. They were rediscoveries from the Greeks and Romans. (Other events were incredibly influential as well, such as the reformation)
The greeks sure did give us all those great thinkers! its too bad that the greek nobles never heeded their advice. Alexander was a viking for sure though and rome wasn't all that nice as the Jews and Germans can attest to and I did mention the malaysian archipelago, Japan, and Western europe and how they were relatively untouched by the mongols but In your case I should have mentioned them all. India at the time was a mess of fractured feudal lords and was undergoing a dark age lite after the Gupta empire fell, the archipelago was in a constant state of turmoil, Japan was an isolationist island, Africa was and still is a land of competing tribes and the natives of america had no good draft animals to work with which meant drastically stunted macro development and trade. They were not set back by ghengis but they had issues most definitely. Europe never was ahead of China until Europe decided to burn China. the Chinese figured out how to industrialize at least 300 years before the Europeans they just never had the drive to conquer as all the land around the Chinese heartland sucked and wasn't cost effective to take and it was nothing but ocean going the other way. As far as China knew it had the best land, best culture, best tactics best markets and the world payed tribute and respect to them for access to the Chinese land of plenty. The latin manuscripts about jesus sure were preserved, anything other than that was more or less ignored even if it was just sitting in a monastery. think of all the deaths by disease that could have been prevented if some french noble cracked open a latin book on how to not shit where you eat and plumbing was actually used.
@Sgman91 Ed Schultz has been of the air for a while? Though he has a show on Russia Today. Keith I hasn't been relevant for a while. I think the problem with comparing fox news hosts and Hosts from other networks is that they're better at holding themselves accountable about this sort of thing. Maybe that's because fox news has positioned themselves as the political underdog for so long that any attack on them feels like a badge of honor for their watchers. Maybe conservatives are more tribalistic than those on the other side. I can also think of a few cases where hosts were pushed out from one network for bigotry only to get scooped up by Fox News. It's an asymmetric problem, not one both sides are guilty of, at least not to the same degree.
The people I mentioned may not be big now, but they were on air for a long time without any real repercussions, much longer than Carlson has hosted for FOX. Even in this case, Carlson was employed by CNN and MSNBC when he originally made these comments, and they had no effect at all.
https://twitter.com/ndrew_lawrence/status/1105636724116475904
A trip to belize
If only you'd said that you don't consider individual statements from 12+ years ago, or 15 plus years, 20, 30, then Carlson would fit the bill while Northram would not. Not that you'd have any reason to, this is just a fancy way of saying that describing them both as 10+ conveniently omits the massive time gap between the events. Northram wore blackface as drunken college student 35 years ago, Carlson described women as primitive and made excuses for a pedophile as recently as 2006, when he was already a 37 year old television personality. You're entitled to not judging them both harshly for it, I just don't think it's a useful comparison if you want to show that you apply the same standards to everyone. Mainstream acceptance might be hard to imagine, but mainstream tolerance already happens. On Trump, boasting about grabbing women like they're pieces of meat, it's "locker room talk" and not disqualifying for the position of President, according to 81% of evangelical voters. Conservatives at large are not going to start openly talking like Carlson did here, but the conversation might just lean towards excusing it as the usual thing men say behind closed doors. 'Conservatives' not being a monolithic group, of course. There will be people like you who don't watch him to begin with, there may be viewers who will stop, but it's unlikely, to me, that any significant number won't be swayed by their preferred host assuring them that the "naughty" things he said (cute choice of words on his part, purposefully ofc) are not worth apologizing for. As there will be people who agreed with the sentiment in the interview to begin with, and people who will start to agree once they listen to it, because they have a low tolerance for ambiguity and would rather say "it's not that bad" than consider that they agree with Tucker on some things, not others. People are often more emotional than they are rational, hence the very existence of Carlson's show. I don't disagree that this isn't new. Rush Limbaugh went national in 1988, for instance. Fox News has been playing on white rage and instilling fear and hatred since its inception. Bill O'Reilly is no moral standard, though I understand we're only talking about what went on in his show, the sexual harassment, and subsequent silencing of the victims deserves mention. In his show, he called the ACLU nazis, The Huffington Post nazis, pro-choice Dems nazis, MoveOn.org "the new Klan". He demanded Obama do more to condemn jihad because his "deep emotional ties to Islam" hurt America. He was a demagogue through and through, with a lengthy history of misreporting the facts. I wish there was a resource for easily searching through a history of TV ratings, like boxofficemojo.com is for movies, so I could look up how big Olbermann actually was, and when he started to lose relevancy. I agree that he's a dickhead with dangerously manipulative tactics, but his political stint's heydays seem to have been during the Bush admin, riding on anti-war fervor, and thriving in a landscape where liberal commentary did not have the dozens of Daily Show-inspired alternatives it has today. Yes, he seems to have been massive, I won't deny that. What I'll deny is that there is a definite equivalency between Fox News and liberal media, same that I've always said, to the point where I'm genuinely bored typing this out. I don't know of any new ways to present that idea to you that I haven't used before. As for the misogynistic statements: insulting a woman does not misogyny make. As someone who talks about sexism a lot, I'm told very, very often, and in great detail, to be extremely careful with accusing people of prejudice, and I have to say you're being very liberal with your use of misogynistic there. Surely, you understand that insulting R. Kelly wouldn't make you a racist, for example? Now, there's indeed a kind of sexist attitude that judges women based on appearance, and men on ideas and ability, and if you think that's what Olbermann was evoking in his comment about Ann Coulter, that's fine, but I wouldn't make that judgement without several instances to indicate a trend, as seen with the Republican President you have. It's music to my ears, as a feminist, to see you open up to the ways sexism is ingrained in society. I've never been of the mindset that right-wingers are the only ones capable of bias. I am constantly arguing that everyone is susceptible to it, that "bad" people can do good things and "good" people can do bad things (even though I put good and bad in quotes to emphasize that they're stupid simple descriptors, I feel the need to clarify that I don't think you should use these terms on the regular). Special mention to absolute creep and sexual predator Matt Lauer, accused of sexism against Clinton and softballing Trump in the NBC-aired forum for the 2016 election. The usual cries of outrage culture followed. Then, Lauer was fired, after it was revealed he had a history of sexually harassing women dating back to 2000, and at least two bizarre, predatory interviews with female celebrities were brought back to light - in one, he prods Anne Hathaway on an unfortunate paparazzi shot, and despite her clear refusal to engage with the topic and masterful composure, continues without pause. He kicks off another by incessantly questioning Sandra Bullock on just how naked she was in her last movie, says it's his screensaver now, and proceeds to basically shame her for it. As per your article, Olbermann seems to have a history as well. Luckily, he did not have the pull to make it as a pundit for anything but a web-series, and hasn't had a political show since that ended. More importantly: he appears to have, at one point, quit Twitter due to feminist pushback against him. The article goes on to criticize Matt Taibbi's sexism against Erica Jong, which an utterly ridiculous example of liberals being lenient on left-wing sexism, considering Taibbi was, funnily enough, responding to an accusation of it from Jong. Bill Maher, Chris Matthews, etc have all faced plenty of criticism from the left. But as we see with Roy Moore, Trump, and now Carlson, it's clear which political camp does not hold on to many standards at all, let alone standards equally applied across the board, and how hollow these calls for it ring.
hopefully on a 737 MAX 8
All this post amounts to is prevarication about some other people whose moral inadequacies are fundamentally immaterial to the topic at hand and then for some reason concluding that Tucker Carlson is except from those very same judgements. Because you're patiently assessing his "totality." Which the actual topic of this thread seems not to have contributed to in your eyes. Why do you always have to make such a huge spectacle out of nothing? You've practically said nothing.
Well it muddies the waters for one
https://www-washingtonpost-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/arts-entertainment/2019/03/13/tucker-carlson-makes-sexually-explicit-jokes-about-miss-teen-usa-contestant-latest-audio/?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1#referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Farts-entertainment%2F2019%2F03%2F13%2Ftucker-carlson-makes-sexually-explicit-jokes-about-miss-teen-usa-contestant-latest-audio%2F Carlson later says, “I was thinking about tapping my foot next to her stall” — an apparent reference to a code to express a desire for sex. HEy folks and welcome back to hOW FLiPPaNT CaN yoU Get
He was still on air as of tonight so I guess he didn't go on vacation (yet)
But you can't judge him as a person though :downs:
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.