Facebook Censors Tucker Carlson for 'False News'

submitted by [deleted] from breitbart.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]FreedomUltd 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (8 children)

Are you trying to straw-man me? I asked SaidIt if anyone was willing to step up and actually say that Tucker Carlson does not frequently and regularly post complete bullshit. No one has been willing to do that. Including you, just so we're clear.

Let us know, is it your position that Tucker Carlson is not full of shit?

Are you suggesting that Facebook placed TC on "reduced Distribution" for just this one incident of posting complete bullshit?

Are you going for Social Media Shilling Handbook 2) Entangle?

'Cause demonstrating that Tucker Carlson is a notorious purveyor of bullshit takes no time at all.

Is your next step:

3) Demoralize

Dismiss their narrative as rubbish immediately.

Do not even read it. Once the [mark] goes through the trouble to research, gather, collate, compose and write their narrative your job is to discredit it. Make it obvious you tossed their labor-intensive narrative aside like garbage. This will have the effect of demoralizing the [target] poster.

It will make them unwilling to expend the effort again, and for us, that is a net win.

?

'Cause I've seen it all done better, that's all I'm saying.

Bonus footage proving that he's also a bad dancer.

[–]SaidOverRed 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Hey gimme some of that tinfoil you're wearing. It looks fun over there. You're saying you had a "labor-intensive narrative" but you've got two links, one of which is ... dancing? Just to make sure, you're not trolling me I did watch it all. Thank you for that. It was just as light-hearted and adorable as I was expecting. Oh wait, you're trying to get me to hate him. Sorry, serious face. Yes, it is my position that Tucker is not full of shit. It is my position that politifact is, though. I suppose you think snopes to be unbiased, too?

Everyone knows that Zuckerborg's (sic) company hates everything on Fox and the rest of that basket of deplorables. They aren't as bad as twitter of Alphabet, but it's still obvious to anyone with a brain. I have no idea who else you're quoting. If that's Yuri, you need to do better with the context.

Let's go over 1 lazy google result you gave me (I'm awed at the work you put in). Only 10 "facts" "checked", 9 of which they considered as much or more false than correct. I'm guessing more petty semantic excuses, but let's see. So scrolling down, let's do whatever the first three are:

1) stated on August 11, 2020 in a TV segment: Says Kamala Harris "said she believed that Joe Biden committed sexual assault against various women.” That's a pretty accurate summary. She said she is in the believe all women camp even after some women accused Biden of things, therefore she believed those women too. Feel free to argue specifics; I'm curious if you'll bring up the interviews I watched.

2) stated on July 7, 2020 in a TV segment: “To children and the vast majority of young and middle-aged adults and the vast majority of teachers, (the coronavirus) poses virtually zero threat." This is also true. Care to dig up the number of children in the US who have died from (not with) coronavirus? Your jaw will drop. The vast majority of young and middle-aged adults (and therefore teachers) are under 45. People under 45 have a 99.9% survival rate. Remember that the CDC published that only 6% of deaths reported with covid are from covid. Covid is no fun, but even at its most virulent, the vast majority of people (including myself) were not in serious danger from the Wuhan Flu.

3) stated on April 27, 2020 in a TV segment: “The (corona)virus just isn’t nearly as deadly as we thought it was.” This is also true. Unless you want to gaslight people by pretending all the various 10-20million dead Americans predictions didn't happen. Remember when people were expecting (guess, really, since its a new illness) a 2-4% fatality rate among young healthy, people, rather than .01%?

I think I've seen enough and I suspect you will have too. I'm no sheeple.

EDIT: random saidit browsing https://saidit.net/s/AskSaidIt/comments/6iek/what_are_some_openly_conservative_companies/p6iv link says "Politifact - Self-promoted as a "fact-checking site" is actually a liberal mouth piece." Bingo!

[–]FreedomUltd 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

You're saying you had a "labor-intensive narrative"

No...

too links

Ah. I guess I see one of the problems here.

It is my position that politifact is, though.

PolitiFact has won awards and been praised by conservatives and liberals alike, and also accused of both liberal and conservative bias. Who are you, and who the hell is investingadvicewatchdog.com?

The good people at Politifact have explained in great detail why 10 TC claims are bullshit. You haven't addressed their analysis at all. I suggest you start by reading the one rated pants-on-fire.

Find TC as adorable as you like. It's 2020 and you live in America.

[–]BigFatRetard 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Politifact might have been good once, but "fact checkers" of all stripe have turned into spin merchants and Politifact is no different.

If I read "while it is true that" {main thrust of argument} "due to" {lame cop out} "we rate this as false" one more time I'm going to shoot someone.

The best was a few where they didn't even use a cop out, they basically said "we don't want it to be true so it's false" fact chdckdd! Lie busted!

[–]SaidOverRed 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I dug into their stuff until I got bored. You want me to go even deeper down their rabbit hole without addressing any of the easy rebuttals I made. I suspected to not get any good conversation back, but if you'd like to keep hanging to politifact's reputation: care to dig up a non-leftist source that accuses them of leftist bias? And don't say that's impossible. I know plenty of slightly right moderates and full on conservatives who can smell actual right wing bias from a mile away (even if the conservative ones enjoy it). Remember, no left-wing sources, to show that balance.

[–]FreedomUltd 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

No, I don't plan to accept some stupid assignment from you LOL.

You didn't rebut shit. You supported what TC said, you didn't address what Politifact said.

But fuck all that... rebut what Fox's lawyers said LOL!!!

(AND the Trump-appointed judge!)

[–]SaidOverRed 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

You started by insisting you were doing such in-depth digging but that I wouldn't dare look. Yawn. I clicked your silly links and directly quoted and then talked about (ie addressed) some third party's beefs. Feel free to quote them however you want, but don't gaslight me on what I'm doing. My responses are right up there. I totally went out of my way to address what you wanted. Now I give you the same kind of request and it's a "stupid assignment"? Just go back to your MSM koolaid if you can't converse back and forth normally.

[–]FreedomUltd 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

No, you didn't address what they said.

Know what else you didn't address?

Trump appointed judge: "Fox persuasively argues, that given Mr. Carlson's reputation, any reasonable viewer 'arrive[s] with an appropriate amount of skepticism' about the statement he makes."

LMAO!

[–]SaidOverRed 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You: "You won't look at this!"

Me: Looks at it. "Here are my comments on some quotes."

You: "You didn't look at this random part! Politifact is the divine holders of Truth!"

Me: "No they aren't. Care to meet this threshold of evidence?"

You: "No! Besides, a lawyer said TC uses comedy! That means it's all lies! LOL!!!"

Me: "I've played your game. Either be serious, or I won't bother."

You: "Here's an unrelated quote without context. LMAO!"

Me: "Normally I'd stop, but your trolling has amused me. Did you really think I wasn't going to dig up whatever crap you're obsessed with? Here's your scooby snack:

Here's the honest context that you dishonestly did not give: https://lmgtfy.app/?q=%22Fox+persuasively+argues%2C+that+given+Mr.+Carlson%27s+reputation%2C+any+reasonable+viewer%22 for the first hit so you can ctrl+f so you can get the justia link for the pdf which concludes that the specific words TC said "are not actionable as defamation". Now, aside from the obvious fact that a legal defense will go with whatever is easiest, rather than whatever is the TRUTH, care to give primary sources for why anyone would give a flying fuck about someone being salty and bringing a (frivolous) court case in order to attack (a political rival)? I mean, other than being like you and just hating the guy you don't like on TV.