NationStates

TURTLESHROOM II wrote:

Gravlen wrote: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.

Alcala-Cordel wrote:

TURTLESHROOM II wrote:
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.

TURTLESHROOM II wrote:

Liriena wrote: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.

Slaughter None wrote:Fact Check: That article is actually protected from editing supposedly because of "vandalism"

TURTLESHROOM II wrote:

Liriena wrote: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.

Liriena wrote:Dude I'm not even American

Xmara wrote:I absolutely can’t stand Carlson whatsoever. I think his views are ridiculous, if not offensive. But doxxing someone is never okay, no matter who it is. I like NYT, but they should have never even thought about publishing Carlson’s address.

TURTLESHROOM II wrote:

Liriena wrote: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.

Slaughter None wrote:

Outer Sparta wrote: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.

No other poll has given Biden that big of a national lead all year, so that’s one reason it grabbed so much attention. But as we’ve warned you in the past, don’t overreact to outlier polls like this one. Even high-quality pollsters like Quinnipiac (which uses the gold standard of polling methodology and has historically been very accurate) produce outliers sometimes, and that’s OK. In fact, it’s better than OK — it’s a sign that they are not cooking the books, as polls are supposed to disagree somewhat, statistically speaking, due to things like sampling error.

Xmara wrote:I absolutely can’t stand Carlson whatsoever. I think his views are ridiculous, if not offensive. But doxxing someone is never okay, no matter who it is. I like NYT, but they should have never even thought about publishing Carlson’s address.

Xmara wrote:I absolutely can’t stand Carlson whatsoever. I think his views are ridiculous, if not offensive. But doxxing someone is never okay, no matter who it is. I like NYT, but they should have never even thought about publishing Carlson’s address.

BurritoBowl wrote:Tucker Carlson should be threatened and deplatformed

TURTLESHROOM II wrote:

Slaughter None wrote:Fact Check: That article is actually protected from editing supposedly because of "vandalism"

Which one? The Fox News one? Or the CNN one? If it's CNN but not FOX, they are obviously trying to protect the reputation of the organization. If it's FOX but not CNN, I'd say it's a mix of trolls' vandalism and people trying to add counterarguments. If it's FOX and CNN, it's all of the above.

Eternal Cesken wrote:

BurritoBowl wrote:Tucker Carlson should be threatened and deplatformed

shut up

Eternal Cesken wrote:

BurritoBowl wrote:Tucker Carlson should be threatened and deplatformed

shut up

Liriena wrote:

Xmara wrote:I absolutely can’t stand Carlson whatsoever. I think his views are ridiculous, if not offensive. But doxxing someone is never okay, no matter who it is. I like NYT, but they should have never even thought about publishing Carlson’s address.

Carlson was lying to cover up a sexual harassment allegation. No doxxing was ever going to happen. The NYT never had such a thing in the works. He made it up.

Liriena wrote:

Xmara wrote:I absolutely can’t stand Carlson whatsoever. I think his views are ridiculous, if not offensive. But doxxing someone is never okay, no matter who it is. I like NYT, but they should have never even thought about publishing Carlson’s address.

Carlson was lying to cover up a sexual harassment allegation. No doxxing was ever going to happen. The NYT never had such a thing in the works. He made it up.

Slaughter None wrote:

TURTLESHROOM II wrote:
Which one? The Fox News one? Or the CNN one? If it's CNN but not FOX, they are obviously trying to protect the reputation of the organization. If it's FOX but not CNN, I'd say it's a mix of trolls' vandalism and people trying to add counterarguments. If it's FOX and CNN, it's all of the above.

It's both so people are not actually able to make the articles neutral.

Slaughter None wrote:

Liriena wrote:Carlson was lying to cover up a sexual harassment allegation. No doxxing was ever going to happen. The NYT never had such a thing in the works. He made it up.

When you are making such a bold claim you should evidence given by a neutral party, so do you?

Xmara wrote:

Liriena wrote:Carlson was lying to cover up a sexual harassment allegation. No doxxing was ever going to happen. The NYT never had such a thing in the works. He made it up.

If Carlson is guilty of sexual harassment then he needs to be fired. But given that this is Fox, I doubt that will happen.

I didn’t read the whole thread so I didn’t know that he made it up. I apologize for jumping to conclusions. I am relieved to now know that NYT would never stoop so low.

Necroghastia wrote:

Slaughter None wrote:It's both so people are not actually able to make the articles neutral.

They totally can, so long as they actually make an account and confirm it.

Slaughter None wrote:

Liriena wrote:Carlson was lying to cover up a sexual harassment allegation. No doxxing was ever going to happen. The NYT never had such a thing in the works. He made it up.

When you are making such a bold claim you should evidence given by a neutral party, so do you?

In court yesterday, Fox News attorney Erin Murphy argued in part: “What we're talking about here, it’s not the front page of The New York Times. It’s 'Tucker Carlson Tonight,' which is a commentary show,” reportsThe Hollywood Reporter.