Tucker Carlson, and comments on the history of FOX

[RumTumTugger]

And people are free to say - "Do you really want to watch Carlson - look what he said Here!"

It's all free speech. No one is being libeled or lied about. Carlson did the show. And if he offended enough people doing it, he'll just have to live with the consequences. Free speech is not a guarantee against criticism of what you say while you are exercising your free speech!


Jim

but that is not what Media Matters is doing Jim they are saying look at what he said Fire him

[Cow Poke]

You did nothing to deserve it. It is as simple as that.

Oh, we are SO blessed to have NannyCharles weigh in!

[Charles]

but that is not what Media Matters is doing Jim they are saying look at what he said Fire him

And if one is to follow the idea that you can at most shrug your shoulders at anything that is free speach (not that I agree) then why are some of you not doing so in this case? Saying "Fire him" is free speach as as well.

[lilpixieofterror]

Sorry but this does not answer the question though I agree with some of your points. In what way could decency be used against you. In what way could it be a disadvantage for someone to be decent? Or did you mean to say something else?

[Cow Poke]

Saying "Fire him" is free speach as as well.

That's true, and as I have pointed out before, "free speach [sic]" doesn't mean "no consequences". But it won't be morals or ethics that determine if/when Tucker is ousted, it will be $$$.

[RumTumTugger]

And if one is to follow the idea that you can at most shrug your shoulders at anything that is free speach (not that I agree) then why are some of you not doing so in this case? Saying "Fire him" is free speach as as well.

No one here has said they dno't have a right to do that shrugging our shoulders will not stop the bullying what will work is calling them out for what they are doing and the folks at Media Matters are nothing but Bullies trying to shut down all views they disagree by what ever means they can. and we have a right to call them out on it. and I don't care if you think it is wrong to call bullies out Charles it just shows your moral compass is broken

[RumTumTugger]

Me too, and I remain so. This whole uproar is aimed at one thing - getting him off the air...

Thereby showing themselves to be nothing more the Bullies who want to shut down views they disagree with so that only their view is heard. they do not want a decent society only one where they can control what people do and think. they want the world of Big Brother.

[Charles]

Doing what is decent would be doing what is fair and appropriate, I would guess? How can that be used against you, unless you take interest in doing something that you should not do?

[lilpixieofterror]

Doing what is decent would be doing what is fair and appropriate, I would guess? How can that be used against you, unless you take interest in doing something that you should not do?

[Charles]

The very simple point I make is that you should not be afraid of anyone using your decency against you. Why would that be a problem? It would be a problem if they wanted you to do something that was not decent. You see the point? You have allowed the conflict to go so far that you think anyone can use your own decency against you. It is an absurd idea.

[lilpixieofterror]

The very simple point I make is that you should not be afraid of anyone using your decency against you. Why would that be a problem? It would be a problem if they wanted you to do something that was not decent. You see the point? You have allowed the conflict to go so far that you think anyone can use your own decency against you. It is an absurd idea.

[oxmixmudd]

You way over simplifying pix. Some things are disqualifying even if a person has changed their ways. Some things are disqualifying only if the person hasn't changed their ways. Some things are not disqualifying at all, just distasteful.

And it depends on the endeavor.

So, for example, childcare. A conviction for any sort of child abuse disqualifies a person from child care forever. Even if they have managed to clean themselves up.

But if the person has had issues managing money and landed in jail for something related to that, then if all things are in order now, maybe they can be forgiven and allowed to work in child care.

And if the fellow had a tendency to drive a bit fast and has few more speeding tickets than usual, we probably don't care at all (unless part of their child care duties is driving kids about).


Now, if a person has a past, and most people care about what they did and what they did is something most people would find disqualifying for whatever it is they are currently doing, then they really don't have a right to hide that under the rug somewhere and keep people from finding out. That is called deception.

And we have watchdog groups for all sorts of things, because if people do things we really think are bad, then we may want to limit what they can do - like care for our kids. or clean our houses. etc.


So the issue here is that if enough people think that what carlson did on that show was bad enough to be disqualifying in terms of being a lead commentator on a major news network, then they have a right to know what he did. And if most people could care less that he did that, then knowing about it will mean nothing to them or to carlson.


this is only a big deal of what Carlson did is offensive to enough people that his employer feels that could lose money keeping him on. And if enough people feel that way about what he did, then they have a right to know he did it, Carlson does not have a right to keep it hidden, and Media Matters is performing a public service.

If, OTOH, nobody cares at all and finds this a great big nothing burger, then Media Matters has wasted a lot of money on nothing and it will self-correct because Media Matters does not have money to waste on nothing burgers.

In the end, Carlson has nothing to fear unless what he did was wrong and disqualifying as viewed by the fox audience and investors (or the law). And if what he did IS disqualifying as viewed by the fox audience and investors, then they have right to know he did it.


Jim

[Charles]

In what way would acting decent be the problem in this case? It seems to me that what you describe are the opposite of that. So, again, how can your own decency be used against you?

[lilpixieofterror]

You way over simplifying pix. Some things are disqualifying even if a person has changed their ways. Some things are disqualifying only if the person hasn't changed their ways. Some things are not disqualifying at all, just distasteful.

And it depends on the endeavor.

So, for example, childcare. A conviction for any sort of child abuse disqualifies a person from child care forever. Even if they have managed to clean themselves up.

But if the person has had issues managing money and landed in jail for something related to that, then if all things are in order now, maybe they can be forgiven and allowed to work in child care.

And if the fellow had a tendency to drive a bit fast and has few more speeding tickets than usual, we probably don't care at all (unless part of their child care duties is driving kids about).


Now, if a person has a past, and most people care about what they did and what they did is something most people would find disqualifying for whatever it is they are currently doing, then they really don't have a right to hide that under the rug somewhere and keep people from finding out. That is called deception.

And we have watchdog groups for all sorts of things, because if people do things we really think are bad, then we may want to limit what they can do - like care for our kids. or clean our houses. etc.


So the issue here is that if enough people think that what carlson did on that show was bad enough to be disqualifying in terms of being a lead commentator on a major news network, then they have a right to know what he did. And if most people could care less that he did that, then knowing about it will mean nothing to them or to carlson.


this is only a big deal of what Carlson did is offensive to enough people that his employer feels that could lose money keeping him on. And if enough people feel that way about what he did, then they have a right to know he did it, Carlson does not have a right to keep it hidden, and Media Matters is performing a public service.

If, OTOH, nobody cares at all and finds this a great big nothing burger, then Media Matters has wasted a lot of money on nothing and it will self-correct because Media Matters does not have money to waste on nothing burgers.

In the end, Carlson has nothing to fear unless what he did was wrong and disqualifying as viewed by the fox audience and investors (or the law). And if what he did IS disqualifying as viewed by the fox audience and investors, then they have right to know he did it.


Jim

[oxmixmudd]

I tend to agree with you in principle. The issue here is that this was things said not in earshot of a single person but over the public airwaves on a popular, albeit bottom of the barrel, radio show. So it is a matter of public record. Second, since it is public record it is up to the public, not an individual, if it is a nothing or a something. If he gets through it, he'll more than likely be immune to it from this point on. It will always be out there to be discovered and used against him. The fact he said such things, if he is not sorry he said them, will always be a descriptor for who he is behind the scenes.

I've heard a lot worse too pix. But not from otherwise good people. I've heard it from the guys that will lay any girl available, married or not, assuming she is pretty enough to count as a notch in his ranking among such men.. From the folks that wind up with a DUI having drunk way to much at a party, or fooling around behind their wives backs, unless they grow out of it fairly early on.

People that carry on like carlson did are not basically good people unless it is just an immature phase that they quickly as they mature recognize is not who they want to be.

People who persist in this past the late teenage years or perhaps early 20's just usually are not good people has been my experience.

Jim