Bigoted online posts from Tucker Carlson's co-writer

[Duvniask]

The hatred/bigotry isn't a bug, but the feature for a lot of people (including myself). The writer should ignore the controversy until it blows over or quietly come back once the peanut gallery has moved on and their attentions are elsewhere. They arguably did their job satisfactorily. Their only flaw was that they were doxxed.

Anyone see the Vaush-Destiny v. James Allsup-Eric Striker debate?
Yeah, Sai’s Eric Striker.

Is it actually worth watching?

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

2. If it's your face people are paying to see, and/or your voice people are paying to hear, then quite frankly, you should be writing your own material anyway. This whole thing reminds me of the Ron Paul ghostwriting controversy. It should be the person saying it who came up with it, if only for staying true to the spirit of "don't take credit for someone else's work," let alone for accountability.

Writers receive credit. And paychecks. The paychecks are the important part.

Maybe, maybe not. There are jobs more lucrative than TV. The prospect of fame is a big part of the draw too, and credit in the sense that your role is officially acknowledged is a tad different from having the spotlight on the person who did the lion's share of the writing.

[Cannot think of a name]

Writers receive credit. And paychecks. The paychecks are the important part.

Maybe, maybe not. There are jobs more lucrative than TV. The prospect of fame is a big part of the draw too, and credit in the sense that your role is officially acknowledged is a tad different from having the spotlight on the person who did the lion's share of the writing.

Then they work their way up. If you want to be on camera talent you take a different career path. Writers are generally speaking perfectly happy being writers, otherwise they're something else.

[Kowani]

Anyone see the Vaush-Destiny v. James Allsup-Eric Striker debate?
Yeah, Sai’s Eric Striker.

Is it actually worth watching?

Hmm.

Considering the nature of YouTube debates, and just how humiliatingly bad the Neo-Nazis were, I’d say yes.

[Illegal Planets]

Destiny vs Mike Enoch

[Dangine]

I'm annoyed at people using the free speech argument as his job involved his speech.

[Alcala-Cordel]

I really can't say I'm surprised, you can't expect people like that to keep their racism completely under that thin veil

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

Anyone see the Vaush-Destiny v. James Allsup-Eric Striker debate?
Yeah, Sai’s Eric Striker.

Is it actually worth watching?

Watching neo-Nazis get supremely dunked is always worth watching.

[Fedel]

I'm annoyed at people using the free speech argument as his job involved his speech.

The speech involved in his job was not the thing that caused him to get fired. Not commenting on whether or not I think he should've been, just pointing that out.

[Thermodolia]

Which is why protections for political opinion need to be built into equality legislation.

This would protect Nazis and Klansman, too. If I cannot fire a Marxist for being Marxist, I am not in a free country.

Actually you would be in a free country if you couldn’t fire or harm someone because of something they said or believed in.

How would you like it if someone said this: “If I cannot fire a Trump Supporter for being a Trump Supporter, I am not in a free country” or this: “If I cannot fire a Christian for being Christian, I am not in a free country.”

Both of those apply to you and if you want zero protections for things you can say/believe in than you are also open to be fired for being pro-life, a bigot, a Christian, a conservative, and/or a Trump supporter.

Have fun in the unemployment line

[Thermodolia]

Giving people and businesses the freedom to distance themselves from individuals with they disagree with has been a thing for centuries. Only now do "Libertarians" rail against it because, shocker, they hate freedom.

No Libertarian advocates for making it illegal to fire someone because they have political beliefs in opposition to yours. With that system in place, I cannot Heck, most Libertarians advocate for an unlimited right of a private enterprise that is not essential (e.g. police, fire, medical, utilities, water) to discriminate in hiring and firing for any and all reasons.

I’m sure you wouldn’t mind if someone fired you because you have shit political views that are the exact opposite of everything this country stands for

[Cannot think of a name]

I mean, I was told this was why we didn't need civil rights protections by the libertarians n' shit, right? That being racist would be unprofitable and it would then take care of itself? Wasn't this the plan? It's starting to feel like something people said because they never thought it would actually work.

[New Bremerton]

The guy is an unambiguously racist, misogynist bigot, and some of that bigotry and personal bias seeped into Carlson's scripts from time to time, directly undermining his well-meaning colleague in the process. He also soft-doxxed and harassed at least two women in his life and would've done likewise to his female co-workers, putting them in real danger of misogynistic harassment from the alt-right mob. He failed to faithfully execute his duties and Fox was absolutely right to fire him. Carlson must be feeling really betrayed and conflicted right now.

[Diahon]

The guy is an unambiguously racist, misogynist bigot, and some of that bigotry and personal bias seeped into Carlson's scripts from time to time, directly undermining his well-meaning colleague in the process. He also soft-doxxed and harassed at least two women in his life and would've done likewise to his female co-workers, putting them in real danger of misogynistic harassment from the alt-right mob. He failed to faithfully execute his duties and Fox was absolutely right to fire him. Carlson must be feeling really betrayed and conflicted right now.

yeah and tuck didn't know before he went and donned his trout mask
riiiiiiight

[Purpelia]

Because of the nagging question of who gets to determine shit from gold. Once society as a whole starts shouting people down and censoring them that inevitably leads to a very dark place.
So TLDR what works in interpersonal direct conversations (where your rule does and bloody well should apply) should not work on this scale because it has a potential to (and frankly if you look around has) turn society into a perpetual witch hunt.

You're really hedging your bets on a giant slippery slope. It's not hard to determine when someone's a massive racist and homophobe, friend. I say this as someone who can also be edgy and use slurs myself; society not tolerating gigantic racists, fascists and their ilk holding prominence isn't the death of free speech or anything like that, it's the ostracizing of those who stand contrary to every ideal of a free society. Preventing (and not with legal, but social repercussions, mind you) the worst excesses of harassment, hatred and abuse allows for the genuine engagement of people who operate in good faith.

It's the same reason you cannot go on NSG and proclaim how you want to "gas the kikes". That shit won't roll here, and with good reason: you're not operating in good faith or any desire to contribute to public discourse, really. One would undermine the very principles of engaging in reasonable discussion in that scenario. If you're black and the public discourse is dominated by racists who would see you hanged, you're not going to come forward unless you're willing to risk yourself being harassed or worse. What do you actually hope to gain from society affording respect to people like Carlson's co-writer? Because it sure as shit isn't an improved public discourse.

Quite the contrary. It absolutely is the death of free speech. Freedom to speak or indeed exercise any of your other rights CAN NOT and MUST NOT depend on what others think of the way you chose to do so. That path leads to tyranny and if you are only free to speak unless it offends someone means you are not free at all. The only cutoff acceptable is when your actions start directly hurting other people in a tangible physical way.

So yes, if someone is calling for murder of a group than stop him. But if he is just calling that group names the appropriate response is to ignore the fool and not to ruin his life.

But is being a racist a crime so heinous that one should be removed from his job, left destitute and have his life destroyed through the lynch mob of public opinion?

The "mob" is doing the same thing he did, voicing their opinion. They are further doing what most capitalists say will happen if a member of a company does something they do not like, they re turning to the company and voicing their opinion that the person should no longer work there, or lose their money. Fox now has a choice, lose the money by keeping the guy, or acquiescing to public opinion. This is capitalism working as intended.

Ruining lives and trampling on freedoms in the name of profit. Thankfully we have worker protection laws where I am from because that is a world I do not want to live in.

[Duvniask]

You're really hedging your bets on a giant slippery slope. It's not hard to determine when someone's a massive racist and homophobe, friend. I say this as someone who can also be edgy and use slurs myself; society not tolerating gigantic racists, fascists and their ilk holding prominence isn't the death of free speech or anything like that, it's the ostracizing of those who stand contrary to every ideal of a free society. Preventing (and not with legal, but social repercussions, mind you) the worst excesses of harassment, hatred and abuse allows for the genuine engagement of people who operate in good faith.

It's the same reason you cannot go on NSG and proclaim how you want to "gas the kikes". That shit won't roll here, and with good reason: you're not operating in good faith or any desire to contribute to public discourse, really. One would undermine the very principles of engaging in reasonable discussion in that scenario. If you're black and the public discourse is dominated by racists who would see you hanged, you're not going to come forward unless you're willing to risk yourself being harassed or worse. What do you actually hope to gain from society affording respect to people like Carlson's co-writer? Because it sure as shit isn't an improved public discourse.

Quite the contrary. It absolutely is the death of free speech. Freedom to speak or indeed exercise any of your other rights CAN NOT and MUST NOT depend on what others think of the way you chose to do so. That path leads to tyranny and if you are only free to speak unless it offends someone means you are not free at all. The only cutoff acceptable is when your actions start directly hurting other people in a tangible physical way.

So yes, if someone is calling for murder of a group than stop him. But if he is just calling that group names the appropriate response is to ignore the fool and not to ruin his life.

You're not saying anything new and just repeating your absolutism in the face of my argument, despite me telling you how that is wrong.

Your approach would have us tolerate a pedophile day-care employee who proudly talks about how much they want to fuck the children, and you would allow no repercussions for that. You'd allow no repercussions for harassing random people in the street. With your ill-thought out absolutism, your stupid idea of "right" as something freed from all grounding and existing only in the abstract, you've allowed for straight up bullying, harassment and other such anti-social behavior: "well, he might be a lying piece of shit who constantly takes credit for what other people do along with creating a hostile work environment with his racism and talking behind other people's backs, but we can't fire him cause that would be tyranny!". Is this really the road you want to go down?

How about your answer my question to you: what do you actually hope to gain by protecting these forms of "speech" from social repercussion? It's not an improved discourse, certainly, because harassment, racism and other verbal abusiveness doesn't come from a place of good faith and is not conducive to reasonable discussion, it is the very opposite. It is the same exact reason NSG does not tolerate it; it doesn't lead to improved discussion, it just creates a hostile public forum where people are afraid to come forth, lest they want to get harassed. That's generally how it is, the powerless are usually the ones who are going to suffer, because you have decided that protecting the speech of bullies and psychopaths is more important (and not even legal consequences, mind you, but any negative social reaction).

[Sundiata]

I expect writers of that sort from Fox News.

[Crockerland]

Context is pretty important. If I tell you that a popular news outlet ran an article calling a Jewish man a "hook-nosed kike" and "shifty-eyed hebe," it gives you a pretty different impression depending on whether I provide the context of that being the Onion writing an article on the Jewish owner of the Washington Redskins refusing to change the team's offensive name.

For that reason I would be pretty hesitant to label him bigoted based on out-of-context quotes presented in snippet format with no way of telling from what's presented whether these are genuine, legitimate beliefs or something more along the lines of Sacha Baron Cohen pretending to be racist against Jews in Borat as a joke.



What's far more concerning than people pretending to be racists online is people being actual racists in real life, as is the case with Armenian Genocide Denier Cenk Uygur, the owner of TYT, who you cite as a source.

[Ifreann]

The hatred/bigotry isn't a bug, but the feature for a lot of people (including myself). The writer should ignore the controversy until it blows over or quietly come back once the peanut gallery has moved on and their attentions are elsewhere. They arguably did their job satisfactorily. Their only flaw was that they were doxxed.

He's been fired, I don't think he gets to rock up to Fox Towers in a few months and go back to work like nothing has happened.

---

The guy is an unambiguously racist, misogynist bigot, and some of that bigotry and personal bias seeped into Carlson's scripts from time to time, directly undermining his well-meaning colleague in the process. He also soft-doxxed and harassed at least two women in his life and would've done likewise to his female co-workers, putting them in real danger of misogynistic harassment from the alt-right mob. He failed to faithfully execute his duties and Fox was absolutely right to fire him. Carlson must be feeling really betrayed and conflicted right now.

Carlson must be browsing a yacht catalogue, pondering what he'll be able to afford if he can get in on this "I AM BEING SILENCED" shit. Might be a stretch, since it was his writer fired for being a piece of shit, not him, but there's potential here for him.

[Liriena]

Context is pretty important. If I tell you that a popular news outlet ran an article calling a Jewish man a "hook-nosed kike" and "shifty-eyed hebe," it gives you a pretty different impression depending on whether I provide the context of that being the Onion writing an article on the Jewish owner of the Washington Redskins refusing to change the team's offensive name.

For that reason I would be pretty hesitant to label him bigoted based on out-of-context quotes presented in snippet format with no way of telling from what's presented whether these are genuine, legitimate beliefs or something more along the lines of Sacha Baron Cohen pretending to be racist against Jews in Borat as a joke.



What's far more concerning than people pretending to be racists online is people being actual racists in real life, as is the case with Armenian Genocide Denier Cenk Uygur, the owner of TYT, who you cite as a source.

Lame