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.
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.
I am floored that I agree with that piece of shit, but… here we are.
What a weird time to live in.
Tucker is scared because kimmel and other media personalities are getting nuked. That’s his money flow at risk, nothing else.
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.
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.
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.
He came out in opposition to the Iranian war and was given Ted Cruz the fuck you treatment calling him a dumbass on it. I think that was before Colbert got fired.
If he was scared, he would have kept his mouth shut. This is praiseworthy
Carlson might also be peeved at Trump suddenly being passive aggressive on Russia.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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