One, guilt by association isn't evidence and is a logical fallacy, and two, Media matters is cut from the same sensationalist cloth as Vox, which funnily enough, is where Carlos used to work. whAt A SupRIsE
-
-
Replying to @Monsterclowd @Moviekale and
Again, disagreeing with someone’s opinion doesn’t make them a bigot.pic.twitter.com/BCnBVbXbww
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @brightstrangely @Moviekale and
No, but calling people things like white supremacist because you disagree with them does.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Monsterclowd @Moviekale and
He calls him a white supremacist because Tucker is a fixture in their culture. Also there’s the recordings.https://www.mediamatters.org/research/2019/03/11/unearthed-audio-shows-tucker-carlson-using-white-nationalist-rhetoric-and-making-racist-remarks/223105 …
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @brightstrangely @Moviekale and
Again, guilt by association fallacy isn't evidence, and media matters is cut from the same bullshit cloth as Vox.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Monsterclowd @Moviekale and
That’s not guilt by association. That was tucker being a white supremacist on tape.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @brightstrangely @Moviekale and
I wasn't aware that being critical of the middle east - an area rightfully to be critical of - meant that you believe all races are inferior to white people, including those that aren't found in the middle east. Also it's a shock jock show - it's called context.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Monsterclowd @Moviekale and
The context is that Tucker said a lot of racist shit on tape and you are here claiming it shouldn’t count. Calling human beings animals is not “being critical”.pic.twitter.com/PzlvlMvMqP
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @brightstrangely @Moviekale and
If people are beheading still, in the 21st century, throwing people off of rooftops for being gay, etc., etc., then I don't know what else you would call such deplorable people. Really ironic to be defending those people for /ACTIONS/ and attacking someone else for /WORDS/.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Monsterclowd @brightstrangely and
Not to mention in that very thing you quote, he's clearly talking about /EXTREMISTS/. He says it /MULTIPLE TIMES/. Very clearly separating a small group from the whole. It's wholly disingenuous to claim otherwise.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
No, he actually said he supported invading Canada. That’s extremism. He did not consider Iraq “worth invading” That’s the guy you think is not a white supremacist.pic.twitter.com/nYRnKcHRHA
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.