Please don't put much stock in those viral clips that claim Joe Rogan has become an ally. Just because once in a while he says something normal and compassionate, Joe Rogan is still an incurious anti-trans, anti-science, misogynist, pro-billionaire, great replacement theory-pushing right-wing lunkhead with a dangerous amount of influence. On the Know Rogan Experience podcast (which listens to Joe so you don't have to), they show how Joe is still on board with everything his fascist influencer guests throw at him. This week's episode covers an interview with a woman pushing really disgusting anti-feminist views from her self-published book on the scary history of feminism. Joe swallows every thing she says and praises her "scholarship" like she's a well-regarded historian instead of just another christian trad-wife. I find Joe Rogan as terrifying as Tucker, because he's sneaking so much garbage into the mainstream under cover of his likeable average-Joe schtick.
I’m sure there are issues on which I agree with Tucker. (Does he like chocolate chip cookies? So do I!) But I don’t trust him any more than I trust the fabled stopped clock. He’s a sophist at best, odious in general.
Carlson is temporary ally who is not to be trusted. He's a useful tool to try to "end WW2" , but the man is Stalin like ally. No not as nearly as monstrous as Stalin but a monster nevertheless.
He's very useful in the only Nixon can go to China sense, and we need any and all the
Thanks, Stephen. I realize that progressive people have been criticized for "purity tests". Also, even the worst folks might occasionally say something progressives agree with. But there's no way that Carlson is a trustworthy "spokesperson" for the rights of Palestinians. I'd have to agree with Ted Cruz about Tucker Carlson, but I certainly would never support Cruz!
The progressive left needs to find a better way to exclude bad faith actors from important/difficult conversations like this. The right didn’t care about anti-semitism when they were going after university presidents and student protesters, and Tucker Carlson does not care about the people of Gaza. They shouldn’t be allowed to drive the dialogue for anyone trying to engage in good faith.
Please keep reporting on Tucker Carlson's maneuverings, Stephen Robinson, especially how his pernicious development influences his current positions. He might have changed out his bow ties from his days palling around with Pat Buchanan, but to me he's just as twisted today.
Carlson has always given me the creeps. Those expressions of fake surprise and/or confusion before he got kicked off of Fox were gross. They were obviously expected to show viewers how they "should" react to events -- in case they were too stupid to figure it out for themselves.
Carlson is odious, but the leadership of the Democratic Party have allowed this to happen. It should be clear to anybody paying attention that any discussion about human rights in the Middle East which includes Israel will not be tolerated. The last election the Democratic leadership refused to have a discussion about the age of Pres. Biden while this election it is the refusal to have a discussion about the role of the US government in regard to Israeli government. Carlson has entered into the vacuum which the Democratic Leadership have created.
"You can’t reasonably interpret his comments about Israel, Gaza, and Trump’s Iran war without the key context of everything else he believes."
Sorry, Mr. Robinson, but this sentence is rather misleading, if not outright wrong. It all hangs on the precise meaning of "interpret." If to interpret means to understand, then it's entirely possible to interpret Carlson's sentence and even endorse his statement, even though he is a vile person with abhorrent values. His arguments themselves can definitely be "interpreted" in this sense. His comments on the biased application of the "right to exist," for instance, strike me as valid and important. It's the old saw about a stopped clock being right twice a day. But if to interpret means to understand the subjective basis of those statements, then they can become evidence for a broader rejection of Carlson's motives and values. As a sober heir of the Enlightenment, I believe that it is more important to evaluate the argument itself than the subjective state of the person who makes it.
I’m sure MEHDI saw the good morning w nahesi Coates, who was an eloquent moral leader per usual, and the idiot Tony dukopil but Mehdi was posting on x not Bluesky so he knew what he was doing, stoking right wing divisions. I also think maybe the Josh Shapiro/carlson statement was less about Carlson being in any way good and more about Shapiro being of the establishment neo lib pro corp same that the base abhors (he supported school vouchers, is staunchly supportive of Israel’s genocide and not supportive of unions or progressive policies unless forced) and as such even a nutbag like Carlson could get some votes much like the post Bernie burying by DNC leading to trump votes….not wrong
Oddly, the image of Oliver, bowl in hand, saying 'Please, sir, I want some more' comes to my mind. Tucker is not giving us more. He is as cruel as a Dickensian workhouse.
I never thought he was, to be honest. Can't abide him.
On the theme of people not being our friends:
Please don't put much stock in those viral clips that claim Joe Rogan has become an ally. Just because once in a while he says something normal and compassionate, Joe Rogan is still an incurious anti-trans, anti-science, misogynist, pro-billionaire, great replacement theory-pushing right-wing lunkhead with a dangerous amount of influence. On the Know Rogan Experience podcast (which listens to Joe so you don't have to), they show how Joe is still on board with everything his fascist influencer guests throw at him. This week's episode covers an interview with a woman pushing really disgusting anti-feminist views from her self-published book on the scary history of feminism. Joe swallows every thing she says and praises her "scholarship" like she's a well-regarded historian instead of just another christian trad-wife. I find Joe Rogan as terrifying as Tucker, because he's sneaking so much garbage into the mainstream under cover of his likeable average-Joe schtick.
I’m sure there are issues on which I agree with Tucker. (Does he like chocolate chip cookies? So do I!) But I don’t trust him any more than I trust the fabled stopped clock. He’s a sophist at best, odious in general.
Very well said, Stephen. Thank you.
Carlson is temporary ally who is not to be trusted. He's a useful tool to try to "end WW2" , but the man is Stalin like ally. No not as nearly as monstrous as Stalin but a monster nevertheless.
He's very useful in the only Nixon can go to China sense, and we need any and all the
help we can get to stop this war.
A racist like Carlson doesn’t take up any space in my brain, but your points are well taken for those who might think he has any redeeming qualities.
Thanks, Stephen. I realize that progressive people have been criticized for "purity tests". Also, even the worst folks might occasionally say something progressives agree with. But there's no way that Carlson is a trustworthy "spokesperson" for the rights of Palestinians. I'd have to agree with Ted Cruz about Tucker Carlson, but I certainly would never support Cruz!
The progressive left needs to find a better way to exclude bad faith actors from important/difficult conversations like this. The right didn’t care about anti-semitism when they were going after university presidents and student protesters, and Tucker Carlson does not care about the people of Gaza. They shouldn’t be allowed to drive the dialogue for anyone trying to engage in good faith.
Tucker Carlson and his girly laugh. 😂 I hope he’s too much of a pu$$y to run for office.
Please keep reporting on Tucker Carlson's maneuverings, Stephen Robinson, especially how his pernicious development influences his current positions. He might have changed out his bow ties from his days palling around with Pat Buchanan, but to me he's just as twisted today.
Thank you for the clarity.
Carlson has always given me the creeps. Those expressions of fake surprise and/or confusion before he got kicked off of Fox were gross. They were obviously expected to show viewers how they "should" react to events -- in case they were too stupid to figure it out for themselves.
Carlson is odious, but the leadership of the Democratic Party have allowed this to happen. It should be clear to anybody paying attention that any discussion about human rights in the Middle East which includes Israel will not be tolerated. The last election the Democratic leadership refused to have a discussion about the age of Pres. Biden while this election it is the refusal to have a discussion about the role of the US government in regard to Israeli government. Carlson has entered into the vacuum which the Democratic Leadership have created.
"You can’t reasonably interpret his comments about Israel, Gaza, and Trump’s Iran war without the key context of everything else he believes."
Sorry, Mr. Robinson, but this sentence is rather misleading, if not outright wrong. It all hangs on the precise meaning of "interpret." If to interpret means to understand, then it's entirely possible to interpret Carlson's sentence and even endorse his statement, even though he is a vile person with abhorrent values. His arguments themselves can definitely be "interpreted" in this sense. His comments on the biased application of the "right to exist," for instance, strike me as valid and important. It's the old saw about a stopped clock being right twice a day. But if to interpret means to understand the subjective basis of those statements, then they can become evidence for a broader rejection of Carlson's motives and values. As a sober heir of the Enlightenment, I believe that it is more important to evaluate the argument itself than the subjective state of the person who makes it.
I’m sure MEHDI saw the good morning w nahesi Coates, who was an eloquent moral leader per usual, and the idiot Tony dukopil but Mehdi was posting on x not Bluesky so he knew what he was doing, stoking right wing divisions. I also think maybe the Josh Shapiro/carlson statement was less about Carlson being in any way good and more about Shapiro being of the establishment neo lib pro corp same that the base abhors (he supported school vouchers, is staunchly supportive of Israel’s genocide and not supportive of unions or progressive policies unless forced) and as such even a nutbag like Carlson could get some votes much like the post Bernie burying by DNC leading to trump votes….not wrong
Oddly, the image of Oliver, bowl in hand, saying 'Please, sir, I want some more' comes to my mind. Tucker is not giving us more. He is as cruel as a Dickensian workhouse.