Tucker Carlson refuses to apologize amid uproar over his comments defending child rape

[scriabina]

IMO, de-platforming is also a form of silencing.

It's not TC I'm concerned with, he is not going to be de-platformed, this "scandal" will only energize his followers and probably gain new ones .

It's the everyday regular people whose opinions differ from the status quo that risk becoming voiceless if a precedence is set making it the norm and acceptable to de-platform people with differing opinions. All IMO.

I am all for giving voices to diverse groups. But as I said above, giving a voice to someone who is minimizing and making light of child abuse isn't just "another perspective" -- it's a very dangerous and SICK perspective that rationalizes and mitigates certain forms of sexual abuse, in addition to one that degrades women. We cannot as a society support that.

 

[scriabina]

BBM. So who gets to decide where the line is drawn? Do you see what I'm getting at?

Yes, I address that in my previous post.

Where is the outrage over certain genres of popular music in which the lyrics glorify the degradation, violence, and sexual exploitation of women including rape? I've heard far worse in those songs than anything TC has said. And there are pre-teens listening to this music. I don't think young kids really pay attention to what TC has to say lol.

False dilemma. It's not a matter of one over the other, or comparing what TC said to other sick/terrible things. Both are bad. I certainly agree that a lot of music lyrics are absolutely horrible and the idea of censorship in music is another topic altogether.

 

[cobalt sky]

I don't have a show. It's not because I've been silenced. I'm just a regular citizen who could share my opinions on the many free social platforms available to me. My First Amendment rights are not abrogated by not making millions on TV or not having millions of follows and retweets. Tucker can join me in this and freely spread his opinions without being paid for it or getting any fame for it.

Moreover, if his fans and sponsors choose to ignore this, he'll be fine.

BBM. Silencing people by banning them from social media and demanding their resignation or for them to be fired from their job simply because you don't like what they have to say is de-platforming and Orwellian. IMO.

 

[Reasonable & Just]

The outrage over this music has been around since at least the late 80's (Tipper Gore). The result was labeling of movies and music with parental advisories, "clean" radio mixes with words dubbed out, movies with R and NC-17 designations. Artists weren't crazy about that, and there were real economic costs to not being able to play restricted movies anywhere, anytime in theaters. You have to sign in to view certain music videos on Youtube, which limits its distribution. You can restrict your kids' ability to download from iTunes based on ratings. This cuts into an artist's platform as well.

Such is show biz.

 

[Reasonable & Just]

Orwellian refers to actions by the state to control the media as well as individual thought. There are some real concerns about that these days. But no one's talking about that with Tucker, as far as I can tell. De-platforming is very much a capitalist, consumer-driven thing.

 

[Reasonable & Just]

Yes, but social media is run by companies with rules. If Tucker doesn't like following those rules, he can go Thomas Paine and self-publish. Or stand outside and talk. Or create his own platform. No one's stopping him.

 

[Wagtales10]

BBM. Silencing people by banning them from social media and demanding their resignation or for them to be fired from their job simply because you don't like what they have to say is de-platforming and Orwellian. IMO.

No one has a right to be on Twitter
No one has a right to a tv show

People DO have a right to speak their opinion
People DO have the right to disagree with his belief on child marriage and child rape.

He does have the right to say what he said, but not free from consequence

Advertisers, social media platforms and tv networks have the right to part ways with him they feel his comments were not in line with what they stand for.

He can tell anyone and everyone his thoughts on 14 year old girls, but he has no right to be given a platform

 

[cobalt sky]

I am all for giving voices to diverse groups. But as I said above, giving a voice to someone who is minimizing and making light of child abuse isn't just "another perspective" -- it's a very dangerous and SICK perspective that rationalizes and mitigates certain forms of sexual abuse, in addition to one that degrades women. We cannot as a society support that.

The problem is, various people have differing views of what is "right" and what is "wrong". Who gets to decide who is right?

When someone gets de-platformed because a certain group of people don't like what they have to say, I have a major problem with that. I prefer to make up my own mind what to think and what to believe. I do not need someone silencing people for me and thus forcing me to only hear ONE side of the argument.

Instead of debating what TC has said and allowing people to come to their own logical conclusion of what is right or wrong, the witch hunt ensues in an effort to silence and de-platform him. That doesn't solve the problem IMO, it only creates more problems.

 

[cobalt sky]

No one has a right to be on Twitter
No one has a right to a tv show

People DO have a right to speak their opinion
People DO have the right to disagree with his belief on child marriage and child rape.

He does have the right to say what he said, but not free from consequence

Advertisers, social media platforms and tv networks have the right to part ways with him they feel his comments were not in line with what they stand for.

He can tell anyone and everyone his thoughts on 14 year old girls, but he has no right to be given a platform

BBM. Wow. Actually, yes he does have a right to a platform. This is what I'm talking about, the number of people with this rigid mindset is really frightening. YOU have the right to listen or to not listen, to agree or not to agree. Silencing and de-platforming is never the answer. IMO.

 

[Wagtales10]

The problem is, various people have differing views of what is "right" and what is "wrong". Who gets to decide who is right?

When someone gets de-platformed because a certain group of people don't like what they have to say, I have a major problem with that. I prefer to make up my own mind what to think and what to believe. I do not need someone silencing people for me and thus forcing me to only hear ONE side of the argument.

Instead of debating what TC has said and allowing people to come to their own logical conclusion of what is right or wrong, the witch hunt ensues in an effort to silence and de-platform him. That doesn't solve the problem IMO, it only creates more problems.

No. I’m sorry I cannot agree that forced child marriage and child rape is a “let people debate and figure out themselves” thing.

Respecting women as fellow and equal human beings is not a arguable thing.

Not to mention all the other vile comments in transcripts coming out.

 

[Wagtales10]

BBM. Wow. Actually, yes he does have a right to a platform. This is what I'm talking about, the number of people with this rigid mindset is really frightening. YOU have the right to listen or to not listen, to agree or not to agree. Silencing and de-platforming is never the answer. IMO.

Show me the law where it says you must be allowed to have a social media account or tv show?

Please prove it

Twitter as a private company can deny him service
Tv networks as private companies can deny him employment

No one is putting him in jail

 

[Reasonable & Just]

The problem is, various people have differing views of what is "right" and what is "wrong". Who gets to decide who is right?

When someone gets de-platformed because a certain group of people don't like what they have to say, I have a major problem with that. I prefer to make up my own mind what to think and what to believe. I do not need someone silencing people for me and thus forcing me to only hear ONE side of the argument.

Instead of debating what TC has said and allowing people to come to their own logical conclusion of what is right or wrong, the witch hunt ensues in an effort to silence and de-platform him. That doesn't solve the problem IMO, it only creates more problems.

That is a kind defense of Tucker, and I hope that he would apply the same courtesy and reason in his judgements of others (like kneeling football players). And fortunately, as long as airwaves and social media and the corporations that broadcast on them remain somewhat free, you will never be forced to hear only one side of an argument. As long as libraries and publishers and subway conversation and fine sites like Websleuths continue, you will never be forced to hear one side.

 

[tara83]

The problem is, various people have differing views of what is "right" and what is "wrong". Who gets to decide who is right?

When someone gets de-platformed because a certain group of people don't like what they have to say, I have a major problem with that. I prefer to make up my own mind what to think and what to believe. I do not need someone silencing people for me and thus forcing me to only hear ONE side of the argument.

Instead of debating what TC has said and allowing people to come to their own logical conclusion of what is right or wrong, the witch hunt ensues in an effort to silence and de-platform him. That doesn't solve the problem IMO, it only creates more problems.

How many sides of an argument to we need to hear about adult men having sex with 14 year old girls?What could anyone in their right mind think this abuse is okay?What a sad world we live in.

 

[Wagtales10]

How many sides of an argument to we need to hear about adult men having sex with 14 year old girls?What could anyone in their right mind think this abuse is okay?What a sad world we live in.

It’s a very weird thing to argue in favor for. Hmm

 

[cobalt sky]

No. I’m sorry I cannot agree that forced child marriage and child rape is a “let people debate and figure out themselves” thing.

Respecting women as fellow and equal human beings is not a arguable thing.

Not to mention all the other vile comments in transcripts coming out.

Luckily, most people agree that forced child marriage and child rape is WRONG. And respecting women as fellow and equal human beings is right. I don't need TC fired from his job and deplatformed to figure that out lol, and I have faith that most other people don't either.

In the end, we have laws in this country that protect vulnerable groups so does it really matter what a talking head like TC says to his narrow demographic?

And IMO if people are not happy with the laws that are supposed to be protecting children, perhaps the energy and passion that people are expending on "owning TC" would be better utilized to help bring in changes that offer better protections for children in these situations. All IMO.

 

[cobalt sky]

Yes, but social media is run by companies with rules. If Tucker doesn't like following those rules, he can go Thomas Paine and self-publish. Or stand outside and talk. Or create his own platform. No one's stopping him.

What rules did he break?

 

[Reasonable & Just]

None that I know of. Hence, he still has a social media platform. I was referring to the possibility of losing it if he goes beyond community standards. Sorry if I was unclear.

 

[cobalt sky]

How many sides of an argument to we need to hear about adult men having sex with 14 year old girls?What could anyone in their right mind think this abuse is okay?What a sad world we live in.

It’s a very weird thing to argue in favor for. Hmm

To be clear, I am not defending TC or agreeing with anything he said. But I am defending his right to say what he says without being silenced and deplatformed by people who don't agree with it. Instead, people should be taking this opportunity to debate and point out the fallacies in what he has to say. And come to logical conclusions as to what is right and wrong. Again, silencing only allows one "side" to be heard and I don't agree with that.

 

[Reasonable & Just]

I wish Tucker was more like you in his willingness to hear out others rather than condemn them for their social stances. But, respectfully, I would personally not engage in a debate on the issues he's in trouble for promoting right now. The acts against children he is discussing are completely incompatible with my cultural views as an American.

 

[BayouBelle_LA]

Carlson responded earlier in the day to the first batch of audio clips by urging people to tune into his show.

He opened on Monday night by describing what it's like to be caught in "the great American outrage machine."

He pointed out that "the quotes in question are more than a decade old" and suggested that it was "pointless to try to explain how the words were spoken in jest, or taken out of context, or in any case bear no resemblance to what you actually think, or would want for the country."

Pointless why? Because the outrage machine doesn't care about any of that, he asserted.

Their main goal, he said, is "controlling what you think."

Tucker Carlson defiant against outrage over audio clips