Dore went on to talk about censorship and brought up Assange. Dore convinced Tucker that Assange should be pardoned. All the Dore knobs are saying this is a victory because minds were changed and Tucker's audience saw it. Some are saying Trump could have seen this and could pardon Assange because of this. I think this all is bullshit. Tucker's audience will not go left. If anything it will just make Assange a part of the Q universe or something. Idk. Maybe I'm wrong, but this really won't change anything. Tucker will still spew his nazi talking points, the Fox Audience will still be right wing as hell, and Trump probably won't do shit.
I agree. Tucker is a very skilled propagandist. He excels at bringing on left of center people and framing their (correct) anti-democrat point of view in a way that serves his own fascist point of view. Nothing good will come from going on Tucker Carlson's show unless you are belligerent towards him at every opportunity.
Tucker's audience already want Assange pardoned. I know because I know people who watch Tucker and they all want Assange pardoned because the libs have spent the past four years claiming Assange is a secret Soviet sleeper agent.
Stop trying to make "Dore-knobs" a thing, it won't be a thing. It's like libs trying to come up with cute names for Trump.
I don't know why anyone is trying to defend it at all. There's no need for a defense because the criticisms are weak as fuck. Going on leftist platforms wouldn't change anything either. Because going on TV to say things doesn't change anything. If Fox News wants to give time to people who agree with us, then who cares? Tucker would be spewing his bullshit if Dore wasn't there. If Tucker shuts up for a few minutes while someone says we need to pardon Assange or that tech censorship is bad, then that's fine. Because those are correct stances regardless if Nazis temporarily agree with you on them. Even if Dore is lying about his positions on those two things, they're still correct. To be mad about this is just people wanting to be mad about something that's correct but the wrong people said it and agreed with it. That's some internet-brained shit tbh. Are we really going to be mad because Fox paid money to broadcast correct things?
That's absolutely what I said. I said let's work with fascists and invite them to be leaders of the leftist party. I don't even know why I typed a paragraph when it fits into one sentence.
Why would West bother talking to Tucker if they're not interested in working together? Hmmm. West has been on Dore's show as well. Not good. Very problematic.
I'm not deflecting and I'm not comparing West to Dore. You keep insisting that any association with Fox News or Tucker means you're a Nazi or Nazi sympathizer. I said that someone saying correct things on Fox News isn't bad. The only response you had to that was to suggest I said that we should work with Nazis. When I pushed sarcasm back, you said that the only reason to discuss problems with Nazis is if you want to work with them. So I post an example of someone who obviously has no interest in working with Nazis nor is a Nazi yet spends time talking about things with Tucker on Fox News. And since you don't have a real answer to that, you are now trying to throw out accusations of deflection (next you'll talk bout gaslighting, sea-lioning, strawmen, red herrings, whataboutism, etc) and once again not reading what I'm writing.
There's no use in agonizing that somewhere some chud might agree that twitter banning everyone but libs is bad. You're not helping chuds by believing it's bad. You're not making chuds in charge of leftism by believing it's bad. It's not fash adjacent to dislike silicon valley. It's not helping them to say it out loud on Fox News or anywhere else.
West is there disagreeing with Tucker and Dore is there specifically to agree with Tucker. The situations just aren't comparable.
Edit: Also, in both cases, Tucker allows the guest to be there because Tucker believes he has something to gain in terms of affecting what the audience believes and that he can leverage the guest's presence to accomplish that. West is there to be Tucker's foil, but I think West is smart enough to use that position to reach Tucker's audience. On the other hand, Dore is there agreeing with Tucker.
Dore went on to talk about censorship and brought up Assange. Dore convinced Tucker that Assange should be pardoned. All the Dore knobs are saying this is a victory because minds were changed and Tucker's audience saw it. Some are saying Trump could have seen this and could pardon Assange because of this. I think this all is bullshit. Tucker's audience will not go left. If anything it will just make Assange a part of the Q universe or something. Idk. Maybe I'm wrong, but this really won't change anything. Tucker will still spew his nazi talking points, the Fox Audience will still be right wing as hell, and Trump probably won't do shit.
I agree. Tucker is a very skilled propagandist. He excels at bringing on left of center people and framing their (correct) anti-democrat point of view in a way that serves his own fascist point of view. Nothing good will come from going on Tucker Carlson's show unless you are belligerent towards him at every opportunity.
deleted by creator
I don't have a lot of faith in Dore scoring that goal when Greenwald couldn't.
That's a good thing. It means that on that issue, those people have the correct point of view.
Tucker's audience already want Assange pardoned. I know because I know people who watch Tucker and they all want Assange pardoned because the libs have spent the past four years claiming Assange is a secret Soviet sleeper agent.
Stop trying to make "Dore-knobs" a thing, it won't be a thing. It's like libs trying to come up with cute names for Trump.
I don't know why anyone is trying to defend it at all. There's no need for a defense because the criticisms are weak as fuck. Going on leftist platforms wouldn't change anything either. Because going on TV to say things doesn't change anything. If Fox News wants to give time to people who agree with us, then who cares? Tucker would be spewing his bullshit if Dore wasn't there. If Tucker shuts up for a few minutes while someone says we need to pardon Assange or that tech censorship is bad, then that's fine. Because those are correct stances regardless if Nazis temporarily agree with you on them. Even if Dore is lying about his positions on those two things, they're still correct. To be mad about this is just people wanting to be mad about something that's correct but the wrong people said it and agreed with it. That's some internet-brained shit tbh. Are we really going to be mad because Fox paid money to broadcast correct things?
Hey, if the fascists agree with us on a few points, maybe we can work with them on those things!
That's absolutely what I said. I said let's work with fascists and invite them to be leaders of the leftist party. I don't even know why I typed a paragraph when it fits into one sentence.
Not really a lot of purpose to talking about problems and agreeing on solutions if you're not planning on working together to enact those solutions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kuc6C2_Txmw
Why would West bother talking to Tucker if they're not interested in working together? Hmmm. West has been on Dore's show as well. Not good. Very problematic.
You're deflecting, and implying an incredibly false equivalency between Jimmy Dore and Dr. Cornell West.
I'm not deflecting and I'm not comparing West to Dore. You keep insisting that any association with Fox News or Tucker means you're a Nazi or Nazi sympathizer. I said that someone saying correct things on Fox News isn't bad. The only response you had to that was to suggest I said that we should work with Nazis. When I pushed sarcasm back, you said that the only reason to discuss problems with Nazis is if you want to work with them. So I post an example of someone who obviously has no interest in working with Nazis nor is a Nazi yet spends time talking about things with Tucker on Fox News. And since you don't have a real answer to that, you are now trying to throw out accusations of deflection (next you'll talk bout gaslighting, sea-lioning, strawmen, red herrings, whataboutism, etc) and once again not reading what I'm writing.
There's no use in agonizing that somewhere some chud might agree that twitter banning everyone but libs is bad. You're not helping chuds by believing it's bad. You're not making chuds in charge of leftism by believing it's bad. It's not fash adjacent to dislike silicon valley. It's not helping them to say it out loud on Fox News or anywhere else.
West is there disagreeing with Tucker and Dore is there specifically to agree with Tucker. The situations just aren't comparable.
Edit: Also, in both cases, Tucker allows the guest to be there because Tucker believes he has something to gain in terms of affecting what the audience believes and that he can leverage the guest's presence to accomplish that. West is there to be Tucker's foil, but I think West is smart enough to use that position to reach Tucker's audience. On the other hand, Dore is there agreeing with Tucker.