|
Of course he does, its testicle tanning https://twitter.com/NikkiMcR/status/1515130557675581442
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2022 13:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 01:25 |
|
|
Don’t know if this was posted but it’s a pretty good visual for what happens to people when they watch Tucker also I forgot just how ducking insane the things he said are until I heard the clips in this again
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2022 19:31
|
|
|
Dr. VooDoo posted:Don’t know if this was posted but it’s a pretty good visual for what happens to people when they watch Tucker also I forgot just how ducking insane the things he said are until I heard the clips in this again it's really unfortunate timing that Aamon finished and released this video just before we all learned about testicle tanning
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2022 23:54
|
|
|
If nothing else, at least Fucker continues to give cartoonists plenty of fodder.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2022 10:36
|
|
|
Wow I have to say Tucker pushing ball tanning is something I didn't expect. Especially hilarious consideirng it was a thing like 3 years ago: https://maximumfun.org/episodes/sawbones/sawbones-taint-tanning-and-heliotherapy/
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2022 10:57
|
|
|
that seems like it would kill all the sperm
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2022 11:00
|
|
|
Gently overwarming the balls is a method of temporary contraception, that said, there's suggestions of a slightly bigger, long-term issue, so I'm willing to let Tucky boy and his fans provide a larger sample size.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2022 11:24
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Gently overwarming the balls... How about this instead? 
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2022 14:26
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/iD4RO/status/1520437838113820672?s=20&t=NTjjcpJVp8nZp06JEJrKCQ
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2022 17:25
|
|
|
This is old now, but Tucker did a great segment on Musk's acquisition of Twitter: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGlP9pSfmzM His main rhetorical point is that free speech definitionally benefits the less powerful more than the powerful, because if you have the ability to abridge someone's speech you have more power than them. I think there's more nuance to it than that because people have different levels of power in different contexts, but Twitter is obviously part of the public square so if you control the limits of speech there you have a significant, possibly even unconstitutional amount of power. My favorite part is when he talks about how even though the outcome is good, it's bad that we have to rely on Musk to do this because our system is so dysfunctional. It's not oversimplifying the issue like Musk fanboys do.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2022 20:28
|
|
|
Dog King posted:but Twitter is obviously part of the public square so if you control the limits of speech there you have a significant, possibly even unconstitutional amount of power. Look everybody an idiot in the wild. To who does the first amendment apply? Private and public companies can sensor or restrict speech as much as they want. The conflation is a right wing talking point that basically everybody posting and reading this thread is aware of. Or have you not read the thread before this?
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2022 20:35
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:Look everybody an idiot in the wild. To who does the first amendment apply? Private and public companies can sensor or restrict speech as much as they want. The conflation is a right wing talking point that basically everybody posting and reading this thread is aware of. I haven't read the entire thread, no. Just the last page to see if that video had been posted or people were talking about it. But the idea that certain social media platforms have become large enough that banning someone from them is a significant abridgement of their ability to speak in the public square is not conservative or right-wing. It just happens to be convenient for them, because they're the ones being banned right now. The ideology behind the idea is much more comfortably leftist (removing excessive power of private corporations for the public good) or liberal (preserving civil liberty). There also is some legal precedent for this, like as Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2022 20:51
|
|
|
Dog King posted:I haven't read the entire thread, no. Just the last page to see if that video had been posted or people were talking about it. But the idea that certain social media platforms have become large enough that banning someone from them is a significant abridgement of their ability to speak in the public square is not conservative or right-wing. It just happens to be convenient for them, because they're the ones being banned right now. The ideology behind the idea is much more comfortably leftist (removing excessive power of private corporations for the public good) or liberal (preserving civil liberty). Saying it’s unconstitutional to ban someone from twitter is a right-wing talking point. The constitution has nothing to do with it, but they want to control social media with laws and court rulings so that it serves them. The framing here serves that goal. Saying it’s correct to nationalize all social media should be the left-wing talking point.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2022 20:56
|
|
|
My man, you are transparent and ineffective here.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2022 21:01
|
|
|
I AM GRANDO posted:Saying it’s unconstitutional to ban someone from twitter is a right-wing talking point. The constitution has nothing to do with it, but they want to control social media with laws and court rulings so that it serves them. The framing here serves that goal. Fair enough. I still think bringing up how it might violate laws is more liberal than right-wing, but I'm more interested in the thing itself than married to any particular messaging.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2022 21:20
|
|
|
Dog King posted:Fair enough. I still think bringing up how it might violate laws is more liberal than right-wing, but I'm more interested in the thing itself than married to any particular messaging. Good news: someone getting banned from Twitter doesn't violate any laws, so there's no discussion needed
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2022 21:36
|
|
|
I AM GRANDO posted:Saying it’s correct to nationalize all social media should be the left-wing talking point. Nationalizing Twitter is interesting in and of itself because it's an international platform. Like, the USA would be controlling conversations between Spanish people in Spain, and that's weird.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2022 22:03
|
|
|
Saw this horrifying thing in a NYT tweet. https://i.imgur.com/7DIOO0B.mp4
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2022 22:32
|
|
|
The absolute free speech argument is tedious at this point: free speech is the right to speak not the right to a platform. By and large when the right talk about free speech they mean freedom from consequences of speech. They care not for what effect that speech has on others, they only care that they should be allowed to say it. This is inherently itself anti free speech. Those with larger followings on platforms can use absolute free speech to direct suppression towards speech they disagree with.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2022 22:33
|
|
|
I knew I remembered Dog King from somewhere.Dog King posted:It's impressive that all of the people Rittenhouse shot were white, and he supports BLM, but on social media there are still people saying he's a white supremacist. That's the power of narratives and ideology. Part of the problem with Tucker.... Is Dog King. He can just waltz into a space on the Internet and fish with a clip like this. Then comes the : Why I’m no fascist but the television fascist makes a good point. He then proceeded to attempt to attach the negative reaction to tucker to liberal and left wing. Now Dog is a little fish that I assume most of D&D sees through. He’s probably doing the same on Reddit or in other spaces where it works better. I’d wager some are sophisticated enough to be mining conversations here, we used to have one of those in the religion threads. Can’t remember the user name. Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 00:29 on May 1, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2022 00:26
|
|
|
This fuckin' knob... Tucker Carlson took another shot at Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) on Friday night. Calling her “Sandy Cortez” as he always does when referring to the congresswoman, the Fox News host questioned whether she is a woman of color. “She’s a woman of color? Really? How?” Carlson asked, cackling. “She’s a woman who talks about herself incessantly. She’s a narcissist of color. That’s what she really is when she’s not shilling for her donors in the green energy business.” Ocasio-Cortez is of Puerto Rican descent on both sides. https://www.mediaite.com/tv/tucker-carlson-questions-whether-aoc-is-a-woman-of-color-really-how/
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2022 01:26
|
|
|
And this is apropos: The New York Times dropped a massive three-part investigative report into Tucker Carlson that declares his Fox News program “the most racist show in the history of cable news.” The deep-dive story by reporter Nick Confessore was published Saturday morning, and details — in the headline’s words — “How Tucker Carlson Stoked White Fear to Conquer Cable.” In one section, Confessore — a Times reporter and MSNBC contributor — describes a meeting with Rupert Murdoch after Carlson weathered controversy over his remark that undocumented immigrants are making America “poorer and dirtier and more divided.” https://www.mediaite.com/news/ny-ti...-of-cable-news/
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2022 01:27
|
|
|
Dog King posted:Fair enough. I still think bringing up how it might violate laws is more liberal than right-wing, but I'm more interested in the thing itself than married to any particular messaging. How is, "law" a liberal thing versus a right wing thing? What laws would be violated if Tucker were purged instantly from all privately held platforms of all types for even the most absurd of reasons? Please tell me what laws you are worried this would run afoul of, in detail.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2022 02:50
|
|
|
Not to defend the troll, but I thought the implication was that the right doesn't even pretend to care about the rule of law.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2022 02:52
|
|
|
Clarste posted:Not to defend the troll, but I thought the implication was that the right doesn't even pretend to care about the rule of law. Correct, but the right is also loathe to admit it in so many words and instead couches it in vague and incoherent "free speech" garbage as though their dogshit opinions and paranoiac turtle mentality are a stand-in for morality. I just want to know exactly what case law and precedent has Dog King so worried about millionaire New York socialite and trust find to the Swanson fortune Tucker Swanson Carlson being unfairly silenced or why said silencing wouldn't be just or appropriate For example if Tucker Carlson created an account here I would immediately submit a ban for them, what argument would hold weight to prevent me from doing so?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2022 02:55
|
|
|
CocoaNuts posted:This fuckin' knob... On top of everything else, It's loving gross how he concern trolls about money in politics from green energy.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2022 12:03
|
|
|
Dog King posted:This is old now, but Tucker did a great segment on Musk's acquisition of Twitter: There is vastly more to it than that, and has been through time. Those with power, and especially wealth, can afford platforms on a scale that no average member of the populace can even really wrap their minds around. Musk is actually doing a great job of saying the quiet part loudly because he's new money and doesn't have the connections to apply pressure other than throwing cash at it, or the social skills to know when to shut his mouth (as the SEC has demonstrated). That said, Twitter is not the public square. Twitter is a private entity. The First Amendment doesn't require a private entity to give you a platform or refrain from censoring your speech on their platform. It requires that the government not censor your speech. Unless someone quietly nationalized Twitter in the last six hours, the First Amendment has nothing to do with them.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2022 17:40
|
|
|
New level of stupidity and propaganda... https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1521280811168714752
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 10:57
|
|
|
CocoaNuts posted:New level of stupidity and propaganda...
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 12:17
|
|
|
Yeah this all leads back to "gently caress Around, Tan yer balls"
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 17:35
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:Well, maybe Russia shouldn't have started that war then? 🤔 Look at who’s victim blaming now. Checkmate 
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2022 03:27
|
|
|
Believable...
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2022 11:59
|
|
|
Aha! One of Fucker's influences is revealed: https://twitter.com/JohnnyHeatWave/status/1560677562002448384
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2022 12:49
|
|
|
Still hate this man.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2022 15:45
|
|
|
 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-62898655 I hate this rear end in a top hat so loving much. He just has the worst loving takes on literally everything.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2022 07:41
|
|
|
Fox should make him wear the bowtie again.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2022 17:40
|
|
|
poemdexter posted:Fox should make him wear the bowtie again. Around his throat like an accessory. And unbutton that shirt by a few more. He's just longing to step out and strut.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2022 18:44
|
|
|
poemdexter posted:Fox should make him wear the bowtie again. I'm punching my phone just thinking about it
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2022 04:20
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:Still hate this man. He is the future
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 10:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 01:25 |
|
|
Hear Ye! Hear Ye!
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 12:46
|
|