Predicting Tucker
-
I don't understand why anybody would make excuses for what Putin's doing, or even hint at him not being such a bad guy.
What is Carlson' motivation here?
I was only joking
-
I don't understand why anybody would make excuses for what Putin's doing, or even hint at him not being such a bad guy.
What is Carlson' motivation here?
@Doctor-Phibes said in Predicting Tucker:
I don't understand why anybody would make excuses for what Putin's doing, or even hint at him not being such a bad guy.
What is Carlson' motivation here?
Considering real Russia propaganda is all in on righteous bloodthirsty anti Naziism, I suspect Tucker is not as aligned with Russian propaganda as all that.
-
So “just asking questions” is marginalized, and “advocating for free speech” is marginalized. I really dislike these rhetorical tricks where reasonable things are made to sound like dismissible fringe wackery. It’s inevitably tribalists playing this trick, trying to avoid answering reasonable questions or defending their attacks on reasonable free speech.
@Horace said in Predicting Tucker:
So “just asking questions” is marginalized, and “advocating for free speech” is marginalized. I really dislike these rhetorical tricks where reasonable things are made to sound like dismissible fringe wackery. It’s inevitably tribalists playing this trick, trying to avoid answering reasonable questions or defending their attacks on reasonable free speech.
Because you know the difference between a leading question and an honest one, I don't see why you're attempting to pretend they're the same here.
Please love yourself.
-
I don't understand why anybody would make excuses for what Putin's doing, or even hint at him not being such a bad guy.
What is Carlson' motivation here?
@Doctor-Phibes said in Predicting Tucker:
I don't understand why anybody would make excuses for what Putin's doing, or even hint at him not being such a bad guy.
What is Carlson' motivation here?
Chuckle mode /
A senior management position at RT? An advisory role to the President of the Russian Federation?
/ Chuckle mode
-
@Horace said in Predicting Tucker:
So “just asking questions” is marginalized, and “advocating for free speech” is marginalized. I really dislike these rhetorical tricks where reasonable things are made to sound like dismissible fringe wackery. It’s inevitably tribalists playing this trick, trying to avoid answering reasonable questions or defending their attacks on reasonable free speech.
Because you know the difference between a leading question and an honest one, I don't see why you're attempting to pretend they're the same here.
@Aqua-Letifer said in Predicting Tucker:
@Horace said in Predicting Tucker:
So “just asking questions” is marginalized, and “advocating for free speech” is marginalized. I really dislike these rhetorical tricks where reasonable things are made to sound like dismissible fringe wackery. It’s inevitably tribalists playing this trick, trying to avoid answering reasonable questions or defending their attacks on reasonable free speech.
Because you know the difference between a leading question and an honest one, I don't see why you're attempting to pretend they're the same here.
This rhetorical trick can be used to dismiss honest questions too. Its point is to dismiss a tribe, not to dismiss bad parts of that tribe.
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in Predicting Tucker:
@Horace said in Predicting Tucker:
So “just asking questions” is marginalized, and “advocating for free speech” is marginalized. I really dislike these rhetorical tricks where reasonable things are made to sound like dismissible fringe wackery. It’s inevitably tribalists playing this trick, trying to avoid answering reasonable questions or defending their attacks on reasonable free speech.
Because you know the difference between a leading question and an honest one, I don't see why you're attempting to pretend they're the same here.
This rhetorical trick can be used to dismiss honest questions too. Its point is to dismiss a tribe, not to dismiss bad parts of that tribe.
@Horace said in Predicting Tucker:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Predicting Tucker:
@Horace said in Predicting Tucker:
So “just asking questions” is marginalized, and “advocating for free speech” is marginalized. I really dislike these rhetorical tricks where reasonable things are made to sound like dismissible fringe wackery. It’s inevitably tribalists playing this trick, trying to avoid answering reasonable questions or defending their attacks on reasonable free speech.
Because you know the difference between a leading question and an honest one, I don't see why you're attempting to pretend they're the same here.
This rhetorical trick can be used to dismiss honest questions too. Its point is to dismiss a tribe, not to dismiss bad parts of that tribe.
Well, you're right. The problem is, there's no one on TV today who JAQs off to the level of Tucker Carlson. That's a legit criticism of him and his show.
-
Nothing wrong with asking questions. However it’s clear in Tucker’s case that it’s just his way of supporting Russia since the full-throated ‘I side with Russia over Ukraine’ position he holds is now unpopular with much of his audience.
@jon-nyc said in Predicting Tucker:
Nothing wrong with asking questions. However it’s clear in Tucker’s case that it’s just his way of supporting Russia since the full-throated ‘I side with Russia over Ukraine’ position he holds is now unpopular with much of his audience.
This needs to be corrected. You have completely misrepresented Tucker's position. Completely. I doubt you've even bothered to listen to him, so since I listen to his show every night, I'll explain his position to you.
The "I side with Russia over ukraine" is a lie. Tucker has made it very clear that he thinks Russia is at fault, should not have invaded, Ukraine is the victim, etc. He has simply dared to state the obvious - Ukraine is not a NATO member, and it's not worth causing WWIII by involving NATO. That is a long, LONG way from the jaundiced claim you are making. I just can't decide whether you're spreading such a ridiculous lie on purpose, or if you just don't know any better. Either way, this is how most all left wing lies get started and spread.
-
A nice little montage. It started with him denying his support, followed by examples of such.
Link to video -
Ah, I see. Your only information comes from out of context clips by a disgraced partisan hack news organization, and put together to create a false narrative that you like anyway...
@Larry said in Predicting Tucker:
Ah, I see. Your only information comes from out of context clips by a disgraced partisan hack news organization, and put together to create a false narrative that you like anyway...
So, Carlson's words should not be taken at face value?
Please love yourself.
-
@Larry said in Predicting Tucker:
Ah, I see. Your only information comes from out of context clips by a disgraced partisan hack news organization, and put together to create a false narrative that you like anyway...
So, Carlson's words should not be taken at face value?
@Aqua-Letifer said in Predicting Tucker:
@Larry said in Predicting Tucker:
Ah, I see. Your only information comes from out of context clips by a disgraced partisan hack news organization, and put together to create a false narrative that you like anyway...
So, Carlson's words should not be taken at face value?
Context is everything.
-
Nah, this is just a hack job. I don't likeTucker, so let's parse out what he says and attack it.
I don't watch Tucker all the time, but I catch him enough to understand his position. Like most people, he tries to separate the wheat from the chaff and arrive at some version of truth he thinks is right. Tucker's position on more than one current event has changed as new facts emerge.
What Tucker has done through this entire process is try to understand the motives behind Putin's invasion of Ukraine, while stating the the invasion was unwarranted and wrong. Maybe he's wrong, but at least he didn't get up one morning, read the NYT and then decide what his talking points are.
-
Nah, this is just a hack job. I don't likeTucker, so let's parse out what he says and attack it.
I don't watch Tucker all the time, but I catch him enough to understand his position. Like most people, he tries to separate the wheat from the chaff and arrive at some version of truth he thinks is right. Tucker's position on more than one current event has changed as new facts emerge.
What Tucker has done through this entire process is try to understand the motives behind Putin's invasion of Ukraine, while stating the the invasion was unwarranted and wrong. Maybe he's wrong, but at least he didn't get up one morning, read the NYT and then decide what his talking points are.
@Jolly said in Predicting Tucker:
but at least he didn't get up one morning, read the NYT and then decide what his talking points are.
All I've seen of Tucker on this topic is in this thread, but I'd assume he'd work backwards from what his audience wants to hear.
They probably want a contrarian view to the mainstream and Democrat position. They probably want to stay in line with the instinct that Russian isn't a boogieman (as a reaction to all the Trump - Russian stuff).
-
@jon-nyc said in Predicting Tucker:
Nothing wrong with asking questions. However it’s clear in Tucker’s case that it’s just his way of supporting Russia since the full-throated ‘I side with Russia over Ukraine’ position he holds is now unpopular with much of his audience.
This needs to be corrected. You have completely misrepresented Tucker's position. Completely. I doubt you've even bothered to listen to him, so since I listen to his show every night, I'll explain his position to you.
The "I side with Russia over ukraine" is a lie. Tucker has made it very clear that he thinks Russia is at fault, should not have invaded, Ukraine is the victim, etc. He has simply dared to state the obvious - Ukraine is not a NATO member, and it's not worth causing WWIII by involving NATO. That is a long, LONG way from the jaundiced claim you are making. I just can't decide whether you're spreading such a ridiculous lie on purpose, or if you just don't know any better. Either way, this is how most all left wing lies get started and spread.
The "I side with Russia over ukraine" is a lie. Tucker has made it very clear that he thinks Russia is at fault, should not have invaded, Ukraine is the victim, etc. He has simply dared to state the obvious - Ukraine is not a NATO member, and it's not worth causing WWIII by involving NATO. So yes, it is our war and has been so for some time.
Then Carlson is no different than any other slick media talking head or most western politicians regardless of left or right ideology. The fact of the matter is that Putin’s war is not really with Ukraine. Never has either. Putin is at war with the US and NATO on sovereign Ukrainian territory. Putin has been open about seeing the US and NATO as the real enemies of Russia since 2007. Putin alone started this current war with the US eight or more years ago. It is irrelevant that Ukraine is not a member of NATO.
Carlson’s pea brained ostrich head is as much in the sand as anyone else who lives in denial about this. If Ukraine falls NATO members are next on Putin’s warlord menu.
If Carlson wants to ask thought provoking and relevant questions that is what he should be asking. Not as Aqua already pointed out, JAQ’ing off all over the nation’s prime time TV screens.
-
The "I side with Russia over ukraine" is a lie. Tucker has made it very clear that he thinks Russia is at fault, should not have invaded, Ukraine is the victim, etc. He has simply dared to state the obvious - Ukraine is not a NATO member, and it's not worth causing WWIII by involving NATO. So yes, it is our war and has been so for some time.
Then Carlson is no different than any other slick media talking head or most western politicians regardless of left or right ideology. The fact of the matter is that Putin’s war is not really with Ukraine. Never has either. Putin is at war with the US and NATO on sovereign Ukrainian territory. Putin has been open about seeing the US and NATO as the real enemies of Russia since 2007. Putin alone started this current war with the US eight or more years ago. It is irrelevant that Ukraine is not a member of NATO.
Carlson’s pea brained ostrich head is as much in the sand as anyone else who lives in denial about this. If Ukraine falls NATO members are next on Putin’s warlord menu.
If Carlson wants to ask thought provoking and relevant questions that is what he should be asking. Not as Aqua already pointed out, JAQ’ing off all over the nation’s prime time TV screens.
@Renauda said in Predicting Tucker:
The "I side with Russia over ukraine" is a lie. Tucker has made it very clear that he thinks Russia is at fault, should not have invaded, Ukraine is the victim, etc. He has simply dared to state the obvious - Ukraine is not a NATO member, and it's not worth causing WWIII by involving NATO. So yes, it is our war and has been so for some time.
Then Carlson is no different than any other slick media talking head or most western politicians regardless of left or right ideology. The fact of the matter is that Putin’s war is not really with Ukraine. Never has either. Putin is at war with the US and NATO on sovereign Ukrainian territory. Putin has been open about seeing the US and NATO as the real enemies of Russia since 2007. Putin alone started this current war with the US eight or more years ago. It is irrelevant that Ukraine is not a member of NATO.
Carlson’s pea brained ostrich head is as much in the sand as anyone else who lives in denial about this. If Ukraine falls NATO members are next on Putin’s warlord menu.
If he wants to ask thought provoking and relevant questions that is what he should be asking. Not as Aqua already pointed out, JAQ’ing off all over the nation’s prime time TV screens.
That may all be the case, but the fact remains that Jon's depiction off Tucker's position was a lie.
