MU and diversity of thought

[Pakuni]

There's a real danger of normalizing racist and other hate speech when it's portrayed as just another point of view or political opinion. Those who argue that such ideologies ought to be in the arena, no matter how distasteful, are part of the problem.
To be clear, I'm talking about the Richard Spencers, Steve Kings and Michelle Malkins of the world here, not your standard right winger. The world does not benefit from giving these people a megaphone.

[vogue65]

There's a real danger of normalizing racist and other hate speech when it's portrayed as just another point of view or political opinion. Those who argue that such ideologies ought to be in the arena, no matter how distasteful, are part of the problem.
To be clear, I'm talking about the Richard Spencers, Steve Kings and Michelle Malkins of the world here, not your standard right winger. The world does not benefit from giving these people a megaphone.

Right on, now we are getting somewhere.

[shoothoops]

There's a real danger of normalizing racist and other hate speech when it's portrayed as just another point of view or political opinion. Those who argue that such ideologies ought to be in the arena, no matter how distasteful, are part of the problem.
To be clear, I'm talking about the Richard Spencers, Steve Kings and Michelle Malkins of the world here, not your standard right winger. The world does not benefit from giving these people a megaphone.

Tucker Carlson had an audience of 4.331 million viewers on average, the highest rated cable news program. His racism, his racist rhetoric, and those of his recently resigned head writer Blake Neff (yesterday for racism, see above post) is a danger to the country. Looking the other way, ignoring, etc...is not okay. It is not a ok to call it a different viewpoint. It's not okay to say well but on this other issue blah blah....there is a basic starting point and basic expectation of zero tolerance for racism in my opinion.

[WellsstreetWanderer]

I didn't know about his writer and it sounds awful but Tucker Carlson is not racist. To accuse him of that tells me you don't watch him. I have to watch everybody to get a real picture of things because networks omit news and we find we have to swing around to get the full picture on any given day. FYI, he has more diversity of thought than any other option I have found.

[Galway Eagle]

I didn't know about his writer and it sounds awful but Tucker Carlson is not racist. To accuse him of that tells me you don't watch him. I have to watch everybody to get a real picture of things because networks omit news and we find we have to swing around to get the full picture on any given day. FYI, he has more diversity of thought than any other option I have found.

Not racist no. But a part of the problem trying to deepen the divide between Americans yes. And part of the idiotic comments that Fox make yes. See the Tammy Duckworth thing, the party that supposedly all pro our troops has turned into 'doesn't matter they vote left so "they hate America"'

[Pakuni]

I didn't know about his writer and it sounds awful but Tucker Carlson is not racist. To accuse him of that tells me you don't watch him. I have to watch everybody to get a real picture of things because networks omit news and we find we have to swing around to get the full picture on any given day. FYI, he has more diversity of thought than any other option I have found.

This is easier than listing all the racist stuff Tucker has said (but I will, if you insist).

[Lennys Tap]

Tucker Carlson had an audience of 4.331 million viewers on average, the highest rated cable news program. His racism, his racist rhetoric, is a danger to the country. Looking the other way, ignoring, etc...is not okay. It is not a ok to call it a different viewpoint. It's not okay to say well but on this other issue blah blah....there is a basic starting point and basic expectation of zero tolerance for racism in my opinion.

Your post does a better job of proving my point than anything I could ever write. Tucker Carlson is a political entertainer, the flip side of Rachel Maddow. You state (as if it’s a fact) that he’s a racist. Actually that’s your opinion, and it’s not a very widely held opinion. If it was he would be out of a job. But based on your opinion you want him silenced. The new McCarthyism.

[Pakuni]

Your post does a better job of proving my point than anything I could ever write. Tucker Carlson is a political entertainer, the flip side of Rachel Maddox. You state (as if it’s a fact) that he’s a racist. Actually that’s your opinion, and it’s not a very widely held opinion. If it was he would be out of a job. But based on your opinion you want him silenced. The new McCarthyism.

He can't be racist because he has a job?
I guess I don't know for sure whether or not Tucker is racist. I'm not in his head, after all (that would be Tammy Duckworth).
But I do know he sure has a knack for saying racist things and fueling fears of brown people.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Whether or not Tucker Carlson is racist, he is the only one out there willing to tell us the truth about sex crazed pandas and zombie racoons.

[Lennys Tap]

He can't be racist because he has a job?
I guess I don't know for sure whether or not Tucker is racist. I'm not in his head, after all (that would be Tammy Duckworth).
But I do know he sure has a knack for saying racist things and fueling fears of brown people.

Who said he is or isn’t a racist? Or that his having a job had anything to do with it?  I said it’s an opinion, not a fact. And based on nothing more than his opinion, shoot hoops wants the guy branded, silenced and removed from the conversation. That’s not how it should work here.

[shoothoops]

Your post does a better job of proving my point than anything I could ever write. Tucker Carlson is a political entertainer, the flip side of Rachel Maddow. You state (as if it’s a fact) that he’s a racist. Actually that’s your opinion, and it’s not a very widely held opinion. If it was he would be out of a job. But based on your opinion you want him silenced. The new McCarthyism.

In his own audio words to name one of many, many examples:

https://twitter.com/nowthisnews/status/1105265381969670146?s=19

[Pakuni]

Who said he is or isn’t a racist? Or that his having a job had anything to do with it?  I said it’s an opinion, not a fact. And based on nothing more than his opinion, shoot hoops wants the guy branded, silenced and removed from the conversation. That’s not how it should work here.

You're the one who brought his job into this as if it shields him from the accusation, Lenny.
And yes, racists should be removed from the conversation. It is exactly how it should work here. Racists and those who espouse racist thinking  have nothing of value to add to the conversation. Do you disagree?

[Jockey]

I didn't know about his writer and it sounds awful but Tucker Carlson is not racist. To accuse him of that tells me you don't watch him. I have to watch everybody to get a real picture of things because networks omit news and we find we have to swing around to get the full picture on any given day. FYI, he has more diversity of thought than any other option I have found.

Actually, you do know about his writer, but dismiss it. And if you don't think Tucker is a racist and a white supremacist, you are simply ignoring reality.

[shoothoops]

I'm all for diversity of thought.

I'd be happy to discuss the pros and cons, when and where to apply or not apply a 94 feet man to man full court press, a 1-3-1 trap, 2-2-1, 2-1-2, 3-2, triangle and two, box and one, etc ..or none of the above when discussing full court pressure in basketball. Opinions can and do vary, and there are a wide variety of ways to be successful.

But racism still isn't diversity of thought

[real chili 83]

No, it's when something has been explained on here ad nauseum and rather than learn from any of those hundreds of current posts, you prefer references that are 40 years out of date and irrelevant to the topic at hand.

You are willfully choosing to be ignorant of the relevant information put in front of you in favor of irrelevant information that displays an ignorance of current events. That's willful ignorance.

Brew, let me help you. You are being trolled.

Hook, line, and sinker.

[rocket surgeon]

No, it's when something has been explained on here ad nauseum and rather than learn from any of those hundreds of current posts, you prefer references that are 40 years out of date and irrelevant to the topic at hand.

You are willfully choosing to be ignorant of the relevant information put in front of you in favor of irrelevant information that displays an ignorance of current events. That's willful ignorance.

"40 years out of date" ?  examples?  irrelevant info?  maybe to you guys...ignorance of current events?  nope

[Lennys Tap]

And yes, racists should be removed from the conversation. It is exactly how it should work here. Racists and those who espouse racist thinking  have nothing of value to add to the conversation. Do you disagree?

I have no problem eliminating racists from the conversation. The KKK, American Nazi Party and others of that ilk shouldn’t have a seat at the table - and I think their is consensus on that.

Beyond that, who decides? What’s the litmus test? Are uncomfortable conversations allowed? I think self appointed authoritarians like shoothoops are much more dangerous than crackpot Nazis who attract only other crackpots. Don’t like Tucker Carlson, Ben Shapiro, etc., - fine. Have the debate and win it. Don’t eliminate debate by screaming “Racist!”

[Pakuni]

I have no problem eliminating racists from the conversation. The KKK, American Nazi Party and others of that ilk shouldn’t have a seat at the table - and I think their is consensus on that.

Beyond that, who decides? What’s the litmus test? Are uncomfortable conversations allowed? I think self appointed authoritarians like shoothoops are much more dangerous than crackpot Nazis who attract only other crackpots. Don’t like Tucker Carlson, Ben Shapiro, etc., - fine. Have the debate and win it. Don’t eliminate debate by screaming “Racist!”

Why is your opinion that Tucker isn't racist more valid than shoothoops' opinion that he is?
Why is he a self-appointed authoritarian for wanting to exclude those he believes are racist, but you're not when you want to exclude the groups you believe are racist? I mean, the Louis Farrakhans and Michelle Malkins of the world insist they're not racist, so aren't you just another self-appointed authoritarian if you don't welcome their views into the discussion?
Why does calling a statement or person "racist" eliminate debate? And how does calling others "self-appointed authoritarians" and "dangerous" foster debate?

Anyhow, my larger point here is that there is no litmus test. If you think Tucker isn't a racist, that's your right. And if shoothoops thinks he is, that's his right.

And, honestly Lenny, labeling shoothoops "much more dangerous" than Nazis is an incredibly bad take. To the best of my knowledge, shoothoops' beliefs haven't inspired many murders lately. Would you like me list all the murders committed and/or inspired by white supremacists over the last decade? It'll be a long list.
You may not like shoothoops' opinion, but calling him more dangerous than a Nazi is bad form.

[Golden Avalanche]

I didn't know about his writer and it sounds awful but Tucker Carlson is not racist. To accuse him of that tells me you don't watch him. I have to watch everybody to get a real picture of things because networks omit news and we find we have to swing around to get the full picture on any given day. FYI, he has more diversity of thought than any other option I have found.

Living in this bubble got you covered well during the Covid pandemic. Kudos.

[shoothoops]

Lenny completely glossed over the evidence. He did not address the evidence I provided to support my claim.

My point of view, as some, if not many here seem to understand and perhaps share is that Racism is not a topic in the category of diversity of viewpoint. It is a non-starter. Zero credibility.
Zero tolerance policy. None. It isn’t good enough to ignore, enable, etc..either.

There is ample evidence that (in this example) Tucker Carlson is racist, he has said, shared, implied many racists things over a long period of time. He hired a head writer for both his books and tv show that resigned for his racism.

Now if you want we can discuss that Tucker Carlson is actually a narcissist and take a deep dive into narcissism what that means... besides lack of empathy, narcissists really aren’t committed to an ideology and merely change and adapt to what works for them at the time. So you could say he does or doesn’t perhaps believe all of the things he says and does, but, he still says and does them, which is what matters.

Clearly Lenny likes Tucker Carlson and/or some things about him or his viewpoints. And Lenny also appears sensitive to be associated with a racist. Well 4.33 million viewers would suggest Lenny is not alone in America. So there’s that.

It’s 2020, if we can’t by now treat other people equally in all aspects of life, opportunity, success, resources based on race, and do so in an integrated way, I really don’t know what else to say.

But let’s not sit here and pretend and dance around things because they make one’s affiliations look or appear bad.
 

[vogue65]

As you say, "racism is not diversity of thought", nor is the KKK, Nazism or even for that matter the Condederancy.  What do some of these people want?  Another civil war, a race riot, another world war or a discussion of the benifits of slave labor and vigilante justice?

And all in the name of diversity of thought, fair and balanced dialog. 

As someone said, you are being trolled, and I'm being kind.  My fear is that some of these people want violence.  God help us.

[Lennys Tap]

Why is your opinion that Tucker isn't racist more valid than shoothoops' opinion that he is?
Why is he a self-appointed authoritarian for wanting to exclude those he believes are racist, but you're not when you want to exclude the groups you believe are racist? I mean, the Louis Farrakhans and Michelle Malkins of the world insist they're not racist, so aren't you just another self-appointed authoritarian if you don't welcome their views into the discussion?
Why does calling a statement or person "racist" eliminate debate? And how does calling others "self-appointed authoritarians" and "dangerous" foster debate?

Anyhow, my larger point here is that there is no litmus test. If you think Tucker isn't a racist, that's your right. And if shoothoops thinks he is, that's his right.

And, honestly Lenny, labeling shoothoops "much more dangerous" than Nazis is an incredibly bad take. To the best of my knowledge, shoothoops' beliefs haven't inspired many murders lately. Would you like me list all the murders committed and/or inspired by white supremacists over the last decade? It'll be a long list.
You may not like shoothoops' opinion, but calling him more dangerous than a Nazi is bad form.

I was referring to systemic danger, not crime (even including murder). American Nazis commit and inspire crimes but there simply aren’t enough of them to threaten the system. Law enforcement takes them seriously (as they should) but nobody else does. Why? Because they’ve shared their beliefs and we’ve concluded overwhelmingly that we want no part of them. Louis Farrakhan was, at one time anyway, influential enough to get a lot of media attention. Once enough people heard his message, they dismissed it and him.

That’s how it’s supposed to work. When you’re enough out of the mainstream, nobody listens. You’re cancelled in the marketplace of ideas, not because someone hurls an epithet in your direction. I don’t give a damn about Tucker Carlson. I’ve probably seen him 10 times, comes off to me as smart enough but more than a little self important. I feel pretty much the same way about Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Rachel Maddow, Brian Williams, Don Lemon, etc.. Talking heads with talking points. My guess is if you went back a decade or two and compiled some of their most outrageous on air comments none of them would look very good.

There are a lot of people in the public square whose ideas I disagree with. Some of them I even think are dangerous. The last thing I want, though, is that they be “cancelled” because of what I think. That’s not the way it’s supposed to work here.

[vogue65]

I was referring to systemic danger, not crime (even including murder). American Nazis commit and inspire crimes but there simply aren’t enough of them to threaten the system. Law enforcement takes them seriously (as they should) but nobody else does. Why? Because they’ve shared their beliefs and we’ve concluded overwhelmingly that we want no part of them. Louis Farrakhan was, at one time anyway, influential enough to get a lot of media attention. Once enough people heard his message, they dismissed it and him.

That’s how it’s supposed to work. When you’re enough out of the mainstream, nobody listens. You’re cancelled in the marketplace of ideas, not because someone hurls an epithet in your direction. I don’t give a damn about Tucker Carlson. I’ve probably seen him 10 times, comes off to me as smart enough but more than a little self important. I feel pretty much the same way about Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Rachel Maddow, Brian Williams, Don Lemon, etc.. Talking heads with talking points. My guess is if you went back a decade or two and compiled some of their most outrageous on air comments none of them would look very good.

There are a lot of people in the public square whose ideas I disagree with. Some of them I even think are dangerous. The last thing I want, though, is that they be “cancelled” because of what I think. That’s not the way it’s supposed to work here.

Hay Len,
I suggest you read your history.
How did Germany legally elect Hitler?
How did American right wing fascists keep America out of World War II until after Pearl Harbor?
How did the Union break apart and suffer a civil war?
How did our country become an armed camp with mass shootings?
How did France end up with Nepolian?
How did Italy end up with Mussolini?

So much for the glories of "diversity of thought".
Now we have a megaphone for hate called the internet.

I don't put as much faith in our government monitoring diversity of thought as you. 

[shoothoops]

I was referring to systemic danger, not crime (even including murder). American Nazis commit and inspire crimes but there simply aren’t enough of them to threaten the system. Law enforcement takes them seriously (as they should) but nobody else does. Why? Because they’ve shared their beliefs and we’ve concluded overwhelmingly that we want no part of them. Louis Farrakhan was, at one time anyway, influential enough to get a lot of media attention. Once enough people heard his message, they dismissed it and him.

That’s how it’s supposed to work. When you’re enough out of the mainstream, nobody listens. You’re cancelled in the marketplace of ideas, not because someone hurls an epithet in your direction. I don’t give a damn about Tucker Carlson. I’ve probably seen him 10 times, comes off to me as smart enough but more than a little self important. I feel pretty much the same way about Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Rachel Maddow, Brian Williams, Don Lemon, etc.. Talking heads with talking points. My guess is if you went back a decade or two and compiled some of their most outrageous on air comments none of them would look very good.

There are a lot of people in the public square whose ideas I disagree with. Some of them I even think are dangerous. The last thing I want, though, is that they be “cancelled” because of what I think. That’s not the way it’s supposed to work here.

You still haven't answered the evidence presented in his own words of Carlson's racism. Now you throw out a bunch of names to muddy the waters and gaslight. Racism isn't ok. Consequences to racism isn't be cancelled.

[real chili 83]

ND sucks