Carlson mainstreamed antisemitism for a long time, and conservatives seemed not to care. Then he set his sights on Israel.

  • Ech@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    3 months ago

    Believe me, I’m not trying to defend the article. I didn’t read it because I don’t want to give that shit views. But I’m not about to defend this asshole who’s not even pretending to give a shit about the actual people dying. Both parties can be wrong.

    • mightyfoolish@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      I don’t see any direct quote of Tucker (mind you I don’t believe him to be an actual news analyst myself) in this article. Supposedly he praised the “strength” of Hama’s (the word strength is the only word quoted here). It’s also mentioned (without quote) he said Israel is hurting Christians.

      The rebuttal by the article author:

      It’s true that Palestinian Christians are suffering, though it’s largely because they are Palestinians rather than because they are Christians.

      The author sees hypocrisy in the right media:

      Substantively, it shows that the right is willing to forgive or downplay antisemitism unless it’s somehow linked to criticism of Israel — in which case there’s a zero-tolerance policy.

      Unless I missed it, we need to find an additional source to see what Tucker said. I’m not really down for a dumpster dive into a Tucker “news” rabbit hole.

      • Ech@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        I literally provided a direct quote. You not feeling “down’” to verify it isn’t really anyone else’s problem.

          • Ech@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            Ok? It’s a bad article. So what? What do you expect anyone else to do about that? You demand information, information that is very easily found, yet refuse to make any effort yourself. What an entitled, lazy position to take.

            • mightyfoolish@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              I didn’t demand a thing. I mentioned the flaws in the article. I specifically said I wasn’t going to dumpster dive looking for the info the article should have provided.

              • Ech@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                3 months ago

                I specifically said I wasn’t going to dumpster dive looking for the info the article should have provided.

                No. You said this -

                Unless I missed it, we need to find an additional source to see what Tucker said.

                If an article doesn’t have the information you want/need, you look for a better article, not demand “we” find something and then refuse to do anything yourself. Hell, you should be doing that for pretty much any article. That’s basic media literacy.

                Also, again, I already provided a quote.

                • mightyfoolish@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  3 months ago

                  I mentioned we would need an additional source to see what he said. Which you must have found. I did miss you had that quote originally. Good job on that.

                  If you provided nothing, I promise you, I would have been just as content. I demanded nothing.