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.
If you can say that both cases share a similarity then they're comparable. If Tucker having West on benefits Tucker in some way, then you have to admit that West being there helps Tucker. Which means you think West unwittingly helped a Nazi. If someone can be smart enough to also use Tucker for their own means then so can Dore.
Here's west telling white racists that white people have been part of the Civil Rights movement. A truth that racists are using to their own ends. And West is smart enough to know that. But he says it for them anyways. He also says he's not a fan of Biden on the channel that doesn't like Biden. So he's agreeing with them.
You just have to get over this lib hysteria about Fox News. It's not even the center of the political universe. You're going to have to face the complexity of the world rather than just categorize everything into good and bad based on media consumption or guilt by association. I'm done and withdrawing from the discussion.
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.
If you can say that both cases share a similarity then they're comparable. If Tucker having West on benefits Tucker in some way, then you have to admit that West being there helps Tucker. Which means you think West unwittingly helped a Nazi. If someone can be smart enough to also use Tucker for their own means then so can Dore.
https://www.foxnews.com/transcript/cornel-west-have-to-recognize-that-white-people-have-always-been-part-of-black-freedom-movement
Here's west telling white racists that white people have been part of the Civil Rights movement. A truth that racists are using to their own ends. And West is smart enough to know that. But he says it for them anyways. He also says he's not a fan of Biden on the channel that doesn't like Biden. So he's agreeing with them.
You just have to get over this lib hysteria about Fox News. It's not even the center of the political universe. You're going to have to face the complexity of the world rather than just categorize everything into good and bad based on media consumption or guilt by association. I'm done and withdrawing from the discussion.
Yeah he "can" be but I don't think he is.