[flagged]
> Then somewhere deep in my brain, an alarm went off: this isn’t good for me. I’m becoming something I don’t want to be. The Antifa creep is a human being. Much as I despise what he says and does, much as I’m sure I’d hate him personally if I knew him, I shouldn’t gloat over his suffering. I should be bothered by it. I should remember that somewhere somebody probably loves this kid, and would be crushed if he was killed. If I don’t care about those things, if I reduce people to their politics, how am I better than he is?
More people should do this kind of self-reflection.
You are the exact kind of Liar (yes, it deserves a big L) that Tucker was talking about in his tweet the other day when he said the media was full of lies:
https://twitter.com/TuckerCarlson/status/1656037032538390530...
And no, I have not fantasized about a mob beating a person to death.
I loathe Tucker and am joyous to see him fall. He is a disgraceful human.
BUT, for him to say "I had this thought, and I don't like it. Even though I don't like a person, I realize I shouldn't wish him to be harmed because that kind of thinking is toxic" shows self reflection and a desire to not be the bitter death-wishing brand of human.
That wasn't my question, nice try. You've never had an intrusive thought that made you uncomfortable, ever?
His "self reflection" is an attempt to feel self righteous and better than the stranger getting beaten for political reasons that he does not know.
His point is the exact opposite of what your truncated quote suggests.
When I was 14!
Not when I'm a well educated, rather privileged adult who spends his day job telling people that trans people are targeting them and that they are at ideological ("culture") war, and actively talking about how the guy I'm publicly pushing is someone I personally think is despicable.
You know what I do when I say something that hurts someone now that I'm an adult? I apologize.
It often seems like those who double down on something bad end up better off. It doesn't mean that it is the right thing to do, of course.
Forgiveness is earned, not expected. You won't always get a second chance.
"The Antifa creep is a human being. Much as I despise what he says and does, much as I’m sure I’d hate him personally if I knew him, I shouldn’t gloat over his suffering. I should be bothered by it. I should remember that somewhere somebody probably loves this kid, and would be crushed if he was killed. If I don’t care about those things, if I reduce people to their politics, how am I better than he is?"
But you already knew that.
I think it is pretty clear that in context the Carlson quote means "how white men [should] behave [according to their culture (which is not completely homogenous but does have a bulk of fairly common values sourced from Christianity and longstanding cultural cross pollination on the continent and related colonies)]".
Other cultures have different cultural traditions and rules for behavior. This is a fact and it is not innately offensive, in a vacuum. We see N-on-1 combat as immoral because we have been brainwashed with a particular morality. I don't believe it is the case that all groups throughout history have seen N-on-1 combat as immoral. Would you claim that they have and do, and that N-on-1 combat is universally immoral?
My best guess at why people are angry when this is discussed is because they have internalized our time-and-place morality as universal, and so any mention of people having a different morality is interpreted as equivalent to calling them "bad people". Calling other groups "bad people" is itself highly immoral in today's time-and-place morality, so, transitively, anyone mentioning other groups' differing morality have themselves committed an immoral act. The moral impulse in the observer is thus inflamed.
There is an extremely ironic submerged Eurocentrism in this way of thinking (i.e. internalizing our Euro-rooted time-and-place morality as universal).
He even admits this. It shouldn't even be debatable.
I'm not going to continue further because it's obvious you're trying very, very hard not to grasp such a simple and obvious point. I'm afraid you might sprain something reaching so hard.
And no, calling someone racist is not itself highly immoral in today's time and place morality, and thus equivalent to racism itself. Your rationale is as puerile as it is obviously in bad faith.
Good day.
You have completely failed to understand my post, please relax and reread. My views are based on a personal first principles analysis, I am not simply shouting and parroting things I have read in the media (unlike some other people).
Is this not implying that white men don't fight dishonorably?
Is not the implication that follows from that, that fighting dishonorably is a trait that belongs to non-white races? If not, why mention "white men" specifically? Why not claim this is not how honorable people fight?
What did I infer that wasn't there?
I stand by my interpretation.
At best, you have him gatekeeping all the white races and applying a no-true-Scotsman fallacy. If he'd mentioned a non-white race at all, I suspect you'd be making the same case then as well. People read into these things whatever they want to read based on whichever team they're cheerleading for.
Yes. That would be the obvious reading. If someone looked at a group of Samurai fighting and said that isn't how Samurai fight, by implication a comparison is being made between "Samurai" and "not Samurai."
If someone sees a group of white people fighting and says that isn't how white people fight, by implication a comparison is being made between "white people" and "not white" people.
>At best, you have him gatekeeping all the white races and applying a no-true-Scotsman fallacy.
Yes, and that's racist.
>If he'd mentioned a non-white race at all, I suspect you'd be making the same case then as well.
Yes, it would still be racist, for the same reasons.
>People read into these things whatever they want to read based on whichever team they're cheerleading for.
Case in point.
I've never watched his show outside of some occasional clips.
> Yes. That would be the obvious reading. If someone looked at a group of Samurai fighting and said that isn't how Samurai fight, by implication a comparison is being made between "Samurai" and "not Samurai."
Yet, very similar codes of conduct applied to other warriors from many different groups and races. At most you logically infer that this was applied to a subset of all the people it might be applied to. Further reading would conclude that his assertion is faulty in several ways (notably the no-true-Scotsman fallacy, lumping many races together based on similar skin tones, and the very obvious observation that every known group of non-sport fighters throughout history have taken every advantage they could).
There's plenty that is provably wrong with his statement without resorting to unprovable inferences, but that doesn't give the dopamine hit that outrage does.
> > At best, you have him gatekeeping all the white races and applying a no-true-Scotsman fallacy.
> Yes, and that's racist.
No-true-Scotsman isn't inherently racist. I agree that lumping in all white races together is racist, but most people in the US are ignorant that white is a color rather than a race and nobody has issues referring to any of these "collections" of races by their "color". It's simply not possible to determine here if he is ignorant of white racial diversity or if he was using a colloquialism.
Other groups have different cultures, and it is reasonable to speak for one’s own group and one’s own cultural moral code. It is only offensive if you believe European values are universal - do you? I am a moral relativist, personally.
There is no claim that Europeans do not engage in whatever immoral behavior. The claim is simply that European culture prohibits whatever behavior, even though of course this rule does get violated by Europeans (as all moral rules do get violated by whatever groups hold the rules).
Moving countries or continents does not delete one’s base culture, it’s weird that people pretend it does…
> A couple of weeks ago, I was watching video of people fighting on the street in Washington. A group of Trump guys surrounded an Antifa kid and started pounding the living shit out of him. It was three against one, at least. Jumping a guy like that is dishonorable obviously. It’s not how white men fight. Yet suddenly I found myself rooting for the mob against the man, hoping they’d hit him harder, kill him. I really wanted them to hurt the kid. I could taste it. Then somewhere deep in my brain, an alarm went off: this isn’t good for me. I’m becoming something I don’t want to be. The Antifa creep is a human being. Much as I despise what he says and does, much as I’m sure I’d hate him personally if I knew him, I shouldn’t gloat over his suffering. I should be bothered by it. I should remember that somewhere somebody probably loves this kid, and would be crushed if he was killed. If I don’t care about those things, if I reduce people to their politics, how am I better than he is?
As to the situation, IIRC it was related to this same guy having previously beaten up some other people. You should consider why NOBODY quoted the actual context and felt the need to resort to libel.
IE, where in the full quote does he then say "I was prejudiced to think only non-white people gang up on others"
I suspect the only case where he could mention the white race would be in the context of disparaging all white races as evil colonizers.
You couldn't convict him of what you claim in any impartial court because your claims (based on this statement) have no evidence to support them.