NYT was going to publish home address of Fox news reporter

[Outer Sparta]

The desire to censor and drive out a man that does not think like you seems to be a modern hallmark of the current American far-left. Imagine hating someone who disagrees with you so much that you want his home address revealed to the iconoclasts and rioters. I think Acosta is the worst man in journalism, but I would NEVER advocate for people



Preserving the privacy, integrity, and safety of Carlson's mansion, family, and property is not "protecting him from reality". It is affording him the rights all men should be allowed to retain when they speak their mind.

---

There are few men that draw such rabid responses from the iconoclasts, Antifa terrorists, and other leftist fringe lords than Carlson. If his address is revealed, they will come for him and, as CHAZ and that eight year old in Atlanta showed, they are not afraid to commit arson, or, God forbid, murder.

Anyone that supports exposing a man's address because of his beliefs is evil and are making the statements of a sick puppy. I don't care if it's Don Lemon, Acosta, Christ Matthews, or any other jerk out there.

It is NEVER, EVER acceptable, under ANY circumstances, to EVER Dox an innocent person.

Doxxing and threatening someone's family is bad. Shame that the right keeps validating people like Andy Ngo who do exactly that.

That said, Carlson specifically deserves to be bullied. Not doxxed, but bullied.

For all the shit Tucker Carlson has said and all the controversies he has been in, why hasn't he lost his platform at Fox? Oh it's because Fox News supports him.

[Necroghastia]

How about you first? Show some evidence that Tucker was telling the truth.

Imagine believing the word of the New York Times. Leftist publications have Doxxed innocents before. CNN is so full of hate that they successfully Doxxed a child after he made a GIF image of Trump tackling CNN to the ground. They then proceeded to blackmail him until he issued an "apology" under duress.

I'd believe their word over Fox, and particularly Tucker Carlson, any day. Also, sauceplox. Also also, what the fuck does CNN's credibility have to do with the NYT's lmao.

[Gravlen]

Even though Carlson was lying about the NYT doxxing him and that the NYT never did so: https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2 ... x1mv62fI6m

While the doxxing of the reporter is bad you can see why the NYT would lie and say that they never planned to release his address under such heavy criticism.

You missed the part where the NYT said the had no such plans before Carlson went on air, and thus way before any "heavy criticism".

By the way, if you follow the money: Tucker Carlson is a professional victim. He will make money off of his lies. The NYT had no reason to publish his adress, and there's no money in a denial.

[Fartsniffage]

How about you first? Show some evidence that Tucker was telling the truth.

Imagine believing the word of the New York Times. Leftist publications have Doxxed innocents before. CNN is so full of hate that they successfully Doxxed a child after he made a GIF image of Trump tackling CNN to the ground. They then proceeded to blackmail him until he issued an "apology" under duress.

Who has NYT doxxed?

CNN are irrelevant, they have nothing to do with this "story".

[Liriena]

[citation needed]

You and your ilk here sure are desperate to kiss a known grifter's lying ass. Pure ideology and gullibility.

Gullibility? Saying that your opponents are gullible instead of providing evidence to the contrary is a low blow.

I'm not the one who has presented Carlson's accusations as fact and reacted to contradicting evidence by acting like everyone other than him is unreliable.

Also, if you have any integrity, you will rewrite the thread title and stop deceiving lazier NSGers into taking Carlson's claims at face value.

[TURTLESHROOM II]

That said, Carlson specifically deserves to be bullied. Not doxxed, but bullied.

I take that you have never been bullied in your life.

I deserved to be bullied because I brought it upon myself through being uppity and meddling. I did not know my place and I started it.

Carlson's only crime is that he speaks to a huge audience- one of, if not the biggest audiences of his show's genre -and is not censored or restrained by any political opponent. It shows a lot about the character of the men on NSG-blr that there's a low-keyed acceptance of either Doxxing him, harassing him, or grieving him.

[Slaughter None]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNN_controversies

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_controversies

The Fox News controversies Wikipedia page is much longer than that of the CNN one.

The Wikipedia page article doesn't cover a lot of things for e.g. sham polling results showing Biden leading by 14 points while others showed him leading by 8, since this thread is related to Tucker Carlson what about the CNN headline being that he has resigned when he had actually just taken a vacation, what about them not allowing their Conservative guests to speak( see interview with Trump spokesperson) what about them taking words out of context ( Trump stating that Lysol and uv light is shown to be effective against the "virus" was turned into him saying you should drink Lysol and choke yourself with a flashlight) what about their "Russia Collision" story? What about when he retweeted a joke making fun of CNN into him spreading "False News about CNN".

[Outer Sparta]

While the doxxing of the reporter is bad you can see why the NYT would lie and say that they never planned to release his address under such heavy criticism.

You missed the part where the NYT said the had no such plans before Carlson went on air, and thus way before any "heavy criticism".

By the way, if you follow the money: Tucker Carlson is a professional victim. He will make money off of his lies. The NYT had no reason to publish his adress, and there's no money in a denial.

It's not surprising to see Carlson do this crap. He's been implicated in plenty of different scandals and controversy that this is nothing new from him.

[TURTLESHROOM II]

By the way, if you follow the money: Tucker Carlson is a professional victim. He will make money off of his lies. The NYT had no reason to publish his adress, and there's no money in a denial.

Leftists have no authority to talk about professional victimization. No one does it better than them.

[Liriena]

How about you first? Show some evidence that Tucker was telling the truth.

Imagine believing the word of the New York Times. Leftist publications have Doxxed innocents before. CNN is so full of hate that they successfully Doxxed a child after he made a GIF image of Trump tackling CNN to the ground. They then proceeded to blackmail him until he issued an "apology" under duress.

Wow, look! You're relying on deflection, just like Carlson did!

[Alcala-Cordel]

How about you first? Show some evidence that Tucker was telling the truth.

Imagine believing the word of the New York Times. Leftist publications have Doxxed innocents before. CNN is so full of hate that they successfully Doxxed a child after he made a GIF image of Trump tackling CNN to the ground. They then proceeded to blackmail him until he issued an "apology" under duress.

1. CNN is NOT leftist, no corporate media is.

2. Carlson and FOX also have a history of lying and twisting stories to fit political narratives.

[Necroghastia]

By the way, if you follow the money: Tucker Carlson is a professional victim. He will make money off of his lies. The NYT had no reason to publish his adress, and there's no money in a denial.

Leftists have no authority to talk about professional victimization. No one does it better than them.

I dunno, being a highly successful media personality and lying about how the evil libs at the NYT are going to doxx you sounds like some grade A professional victimization.

[Slaughter None]

Imagine believing the word of the New York Times. Leftist publications have Doxxed innocents before. CNN is so full of hate that they successfully Doxxed a child after he made a GIF image of Trump tackling CNN to the ground. They then proceeded to blackmail him until he issued an "apology" under duress.

Wow, look! You're relying on deflection, just like Carlson did!

What are you doing that's different?

[Liriena]

By the way, if you follow the money: Tucker Carlson is a professional victim. He will make money off of his lies. The NYT had no reason to publish his adress, and there's no money in a denial.

Leftists have no authority to talk about professional victimization. No one does it better than them.

Again with the deflection.

they: "Tucker Carlson is an objectively unreliable source"
you: "bUt ThE lEfTiStS!1!1!!!!"

[TURTLESHROOM II]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNN_controversies

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_controversies

The Fox News controversies Wikipedia page is much longer than that of the CNN one.

Imagine considering Wikipedia neutral, reliable, trustworthy on any political matter, or unbiased.

Hmm, it's almost like Wikipedia has political bias despite its laughable claim of "neutrality". OR, it's almost like people hate Fox News more than CNN and so document its "controversies" in better detail. Keep in mind that the lion share of its editors- and any loser can edit at any time -tend to have similar opinions. Just like Reddit.

[Necroghastia]

Wow, look! You're relying on deflection, just like Carlson did!

What are you doing that's different?

Not bringing in a company that has nothing to do with this in order to attack the credibility of another company entirely.

[Outer Sparta]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_controversies

The Fox News controversies Wikipedia page is much longer than that of the CNN one.

Imagine considering Wikipedia neutral, reliable, trustworthy on any political matter, or unbiased.

Hmm, it's almost like Wikipedia has political bias despite its laughable claim of "neutrality". OR, it's almost like people hate Fox News more than CNN and so document its "controversies" in better detail. Keep in mind that the lion share of its editors- and any loser can edit at any time -tend to have similar opinions. Just like Reddit.

Well they first used a Wikipedia post to try and prove that Fox News doesn't lie as much as CNN.

[Liriena]

Wow, look! You're relying on deflection, just like Carlson did!

What are you doing that's different?

I provided sources showing that (a) Tucker Carlson lied amd (b) that he had a specific reason to lie. Have you added those sources in your OP, by the way? Or will you insist on pulling a wool over your reader's eyes and give them just Carlson's words as a source?

[Kowani]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_controversies

The Fox News controversies Wikipedia page is much longer than that of the CNN one.

Imagine considering Wikipedia neutral, reliable, trustworthy on any political matter, or unbiased.

Hmm, it's almost like Wikipedia has political bias despite its laughable claim of "neutrality". OR, it's almost like people hate Fox News more than CNN and so document its "controversies" in better detail. Keep in mind that the lion share of its editors- and any loser can edit at any time -tend to have similar opinions. Just like Reddit.

“Evidence shmevidence, I have feelings!“

[Necroghastia]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_controversies

The Fox News controversies Wikipedia page is much longer than that of the CNN one.

Imagine considering Wikipedia neutral, reliable, trustworthy on any political matter, or unbiased.

Hmm, it's almost like Wikipedia has political bias despite its laughable claim of "neutrality". OR, it's almost like people hate Fox News more than CNN and so document its "controversies" in better detail. Keep in mind that the lion share of its editors- and any loser can edit at any time -tend to have similar opinions. Just like Reddit.

If it's a good enough source for SN, then I don't see why we shouldn't be able to use that same source as a rebuttal.
And if any loser can edit at any time, what's your excuse for not helping to document if you believe it's so woefully inadequate?

[Liriena]

How about you first? Show some evidence that Tucker was telling the truth.

Imagine believing the word of the New York Times. Leftist publications have Doxxed innocents before. CNN is so full of hate that they successfully Doxxed a child after he made a GIF image of Trump tackling CNN to the ground. They then proceeded to blackmail him until he issued an "apology" under duress.

Oh, by the way, they didn't doxx a "child". The author of the gif was a grown man.

[Alcala-Cordel]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_controversies

The Fox News controversies Wikipedia page is much longer than that of the CNN one.

Imagine considering Wikipedia neutral, reliable, trustworthy on any political matter, or unbiased.

Hmm, it's almost like Wikipedia has political bias despite its laughable claim of "neutrality". OR, it's almost like people hate Fox News more than CNN and so document its "controversies" in better detail. Keep in mind that the lion share of its editors- and any loser can edit at any time -tend to have similar opinions. Just like Reddit.

So it's lies and conspiracy when it happens to a source you agree with, but when it's a source you disagree with it's facts and logic.

Imagine believing the word of the New York Times. Leftist publications have Doxxed innocents before. CNN is so full of hate that they successfully Doxxed a child after he made a GIF image of Trump tackling CNN to the ground. They then proceeded to blackmail him until he issued an "apology" under duress.

Oh, by the way, they didn't doxx a "child". The author of the gif was a grown man.

A man-child.

[Gormwood]

Imagine believing the word of the New York Times. Leftist publications have Doxxed innocents before. CNN is so full of hate that they successfully Doxxed a child after he made a GIF image of Trump tackling CNN to the ground. They then proceeded to blackmail him until he issued an "apology" under duress.

Oh, by the way, they didn't doxx a "child". The author of the gif was a grown man.

Biologically anyways.

[Slaughter None]

Imagine considering Wikipedia neutral, reliable, trustworthy on any political matter, or unbiased.

Hmm, it's almost like Wikipedia has political bias despite its laughable claim of "neutrality". OR, it's almost like people hate Fox News more than CNN and so document its "controversies" in better detail. Keep in mind that the lion share of its editors- and any loser can edit at any time -tend to have similar opinions. Just like Reddit.

If it's a good enough source for SN, then I don't see why we shouldn't be able to use that same source as a rebuttal.
And if any loser can edit at any time, what's your excuse for not helping to document if you believe it's so woefully inadequate?

Fact Check: That article is actually protected from editing supposedly because of "vandalism"

[TURTLESHROOM II]

they: "Tucker Carlson is an objectively unreliable source"
you: "bUt ThE lEfTiStS!1!1!!!!"

He is a subjectively unreliable source. Furthermore, I did not say anything about Carlson's reliability as a source.

You had the audacity to call him a professional victim. Even if he is a professional victim- and I would hardly call a millionaire that preaches self-reliance and MUH BOOTSTRAPS instead of demanding the rich (but not himself) being plundered a "victim" in the same sense -that doesn't render my point moot.

Your entire ideology exists on the Jim Crow-designed, modern welfare system and the dependency and victimization it creates. Without professional victimization, your entire base would collapse. It only takes twenty percent of the black vote to permanently go to the GOP to make your party cease to exist. You depend on dependency to the state. Forty years of voting en bloc and nothing gained.