I believe you. But I was asking about this interview.
Tucker used to be on CNN. Also he was on MSNBC during the bowtie years. He was actually nice and fun to watch on MSNBC. He was snarky and catty about his former employer, CNN, though. Maybe that was his dirt bag side leaking out.
The guest was making a point about Chauvin using excessive force. Tucker countered that he was more concerned about business closed down by the pandemic and then threw in the laugh for whatever reason. It was really strange.
Why you hating on your fellow traveler's?
Right. It looked like the ex-cop was suggesting attention should be paid to making the cops behave rather than taking steps against destruction like we saw in 2020 and again this year.
You're ignoring the fact that the bad behavior kills people. It's not insignificant naughtiness. It also ignited the demonstrations last summer. If that worries Tuck, he ought to support making cops behave.
www.politico.com
As I've pointed out in a similar thread, Carlson doesn't need advertisers. Fox isn't going to fire him because his ad revenue is subpar.
Fox News currently gets $1.6 billion in subscriber fees (i.e. payments from the cable companies), and $1.2 billion from advertising. The more viewers Fox has, the stronger their negotiating position with the cable companies, and the more they make. When advertisers pull from a show like Carlson, they usually just reallocate it to different shows on Fox News.
It's also highly likely that Fox News is feeding off the controversies. It drives viewers, and plays into the modern conservative mindset where "owning the libs" is more important than actually enacting policies.
As long as Carlson gets enough viewers, Fox is unlikely to kick him off the air, no matter what garbage he spouts.
Opinion | Will a Boycott Knock Tucker Off the Air? Don’t Count on It.
It turns out that advertisers aren’t the only thing that floats the Fox ship.
Did you hear something that suggested to you that Carlson disagreed with the verdict about Chauvin's "bad behavior"?
Thats just you making **** up because you cant make a counter argument. Pretty much exactly what I accused you guys of. Thanks
I never said that Tuck disagreed with the verdict. I said that he deflected from the subject of police excessive force. Since even he couldn't deny the legitimacy of the verdict and the fact of excessive force, he changed the topic.
Intelligence has nothing to do with Tuckers appeal. He bypasses that part. He plays on fear and insecurity.
Why hello mr sock!
We wont be cowed into being afraid of the “boy who called woldf” scenario or the “just because he disagrees” mantra.
The last part we knew already.Red:
- Philosophers have multiple terms for reasoning such as that found in the line you proffered; one of those names is "fallacious counterfactual reasoning." However, many folks who lack so much as the least bit of formal logic training are equally cognizant of the absurdity of such lines of thought. Some such folks express the concept of irrational speculation using an aphorism:
Just as frogs haven't wings, practicing nationalists don't disabuse themselves of racist attitudes, expressions and behaviors.
I have many disagreements with that article. I don’t think the author understands autism. He is using the same flawed reasoning as Hans Asperger. The syndrome that shares his name was said to be autistic sociopathy in nature but that is far from the truth. There isnt an inability to have compassion towards others in AS, rather it is a difficulty in understanding social cues and lack of natural understanding of empathy and social cues. It is far different from sociopathy. The article is attacking the wrong cause to the detriment of people who are actually experiencing a high functioning autism. With that said, there are similarities though, people in the higher functioning end of the autism spectrum tend to get more agitated when routines are interrupted for example.
Yeah those advertisers are doing jack shit until they boycott all of fox news.As I've pointed out in a similar thread, Carlson doesn't need advertisers. Fox isn't going to fire him because his ad revenue is subpar.
Fox News currently gets $1.6 billion in subscriber fees (i.e. payments from the cable companies), and $1.2 billion from advertising. The more viewers Fox has, the stronger their negotiating position with the cable companies, and the more they make. When advertisers pull from a show like Carlson, they usually just reallocate it to different shows on Fox News.
It's also highly likely that Fox News is feeding off the controversies. It drives viewers, and plays into the modern conservative mindset where "owning the libs" is more important than actually enacting policies.
As long as Carlson gets enough viewers, Fox is unlikely to kick him off the air, no matter what garbage he spouts.
Opinion | Will a Boycott Knock Tucker Off the Air? Don’t Count on It.
It turns out that advertisers aren’t the only thing that floats the Fox ship.
His guest was telling the truth. Tucker can't deal with that. The only way out is to be disrespectful and eventually cut him off. But his viewers think he tough for doing that. I just think he's a moronic asshole.
