Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Here's a beautiful example of the Tucker stare from yesterday--it's all throughout the interview:

:)

Michael

MacCarthy type guilt by association is far from dead.   

Neo-Lysenkoism has  found a warm and snug home in academia  and among the liberal progressives.  Which does not surprise me one bit.  During the 1920's  Mussolini was regarded by the progressive liberals  as the Bright Boy finally bring Progress to Italy.   These are the same people who made excuses for the thug and monster,  Josef Stalin.   

So these avatars of "free inquiry"  are busy demonizing anyone who has a reasonable scientific objection to the climate sensitivity models  sponsored by the IPCC.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This.

I am becoming a fan of Tucker. He challenges--hard--Jennifer Rubin, an allegedly conservative writer for WaPo, on her claim that Trump supporters are angry old white men bigots and that's why they oppose illegal immigration. 

I hope he eventually replaces Megyn Kelly over at Fox.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is one of the most bizarre interviews Tucker has had to do so far.

He is interviewing Newsweek's reporter Kurt Eichenwald on his claim that Trump was institutionalized in a mental hospital and the guy would not say whether he had evidence or not. Instead, he kept going on about some shaggy dog story and telling Tucker he's not fooling anyone and stuff like that. Really sanctimonious and icky.

At the end, instead of answering a simple question, this dude went on and on about how CIA officers have sacrificed for their country...

Weird...

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Weaknews has absolutely no credibility with me - least of all, because of their "reporters." Someone who makes unfounded ranting smears about Trump's mental health, and gives hosannas to CIA officers who have led us into the botched Bay of Pigs Invasion, the totally unfounded WMD basis for invading Iraq, and the viciously lying story about Benghazi, needs to check into that institution he accused Trump of attending. Most recently, we have unnamed CIA officials making unsubstantiated allegations that the Wikileaks documents about the DNC and Hillary's campaign were obtained and/or controlled personally by Vladimir Putin. This is the worst, most transparent kind of demagogical manipulation of which the Dem's, liberals, and progressives are angrily accusing Trump. Why, it's almost as if they were engaging in psychological projection...? :cool:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's something when a flaming leftie defends Tucker.

Jimmy Dore defending Tucker Carlson?

And he's right? Just like Tucker is right?

My favorite line was when Jimmy praised Tucker and bashed his own guy Schiff, then said (I paraphrase because I'm too lazy to go back and transcribe): "You see? That's what happens when you're fucking paid to lie!"

Dayaamm!

That was awesome.

:)

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ayn Rand talked about "argument from intimidation."

This basically is an ad hominem form to get people to shut up by shaming them with a charge of ignorance, implicit or explicit. ("Nobody intelligent could possibly believe blah blah blah...")

I have never seen anyone destroy this form of manipulation so effectively as Tucker Carlson. 

Just look at what he did to this guy:

It's well worth studying Tucker's tactics.

Off the top of my head from what I just saw:

1. He states something controversial the other has claimed.

2. He employs the principle of charity to move the discussion away from black-and-white us-versus-them on the person's statement. ("I'm not saying you meant blah blah blah like some of the more radical pundits are...")

3. He asks with genuine curiosity what the person was trying to get at.

4. He waits for THE CLAIM. This is when the person makes a claim that can only be backed up with argument from intimidation since there are no facts to back it up. Then he asks the person how that person knows. (In the case of the professor above, the professor claimed that 98% of scientists agree about climate change. Tucker asked him how he knows this.)

5. He lets the person ramble on with subterfuge, snark, intimidation, etc., but constantly interjects his principle of charity position ("I've already said I'm not accusing you of...") and keeps questioning how the person knows THE CLAIM.

6. After this goes on for a bit, Tucker states, clearly and with good-natured chuckling (not mocking), that the person simply doesn't know what he's talking about and is arguing faith-based. And he does this from different angles.

7. He runs out the clock.

BOOM.

This is how Tucker is getting a huge number of people to agree with him and discredit some of the more irrational fanatics. Even lefties are agreeing with him at times.

I just learned something and maybe others in our subcommunity would do well to look into Tucker's tactics.

In my experience, Objectivist snark and put-downs (especially ones that try to ape Rand's manner) never did discredit a person making an argument from intimidation, not with people at large. God knows I did enough of that crap when I was younger. Oh, I got high-fives from Objectivists and Rand-friendly people, but that's singing to the choir. For normal non-partisan people, all it ever did was set us-versus-them boundaries. Since normal people do not invest much passion in that divide, both the argument from intimidation and the snarky put-downs almost always become irrelevant to them.

Tucker makes it relevant to normal people and discredits his target to boot. And the public is lapping it up.

That's quite an achievement.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now this was an interview.

Tucker chose Glenn Beck to kick off his new show where he is replacing Megyn Kelly in the 9:00 PM time slot on Fox. That's the big time prime time.

Tucker nailed Glenn on Cruz and a few things, then drew the good out of him. 

There's a lot I could say (positive and negative, but especially negative) since I have become disenchanted with Glenn, but I liked what I saw out of both at the end of this interview.

Was it just me, or was Glenn nervous during this interview? He looked insecure to me, like a beginning broadcaster, during many moments.

If Tucker keeps going the way he is (focusing on issues cordially, but principled and without BS) and doesn't turn into a caricature of himself once the fame kicks in for real, I'm going to enjoy his show a lot. 

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't watch Glenn enough, but it sounded like his voice quavered through most of the interview.  I think Tucker needs to dial down the private questions, if it's required to go on his show and answer questions people might not even answer to their psychologist (assuming they have one), he's not going to have people wanting to come on his show, there's not much value trade.  But I like Tucker overall and enjoyed the video.  How Beck answered the question at the end seemed to confirm his narcissism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, KorbenDallas said:

I think Tucker needs to dial down the private questions...

Korben,

I haven't seen Tucker get this personal with others. I think he did this time because he used to hold Glenn is such high regard. In other words, even though Tucker didn't show it all that much, I think this interview for him was personal (see his gush about Glenn in the middle). After all, Glenn was his first guest in the big time.

I got the impression Tucker was interviewing a (for him) fallen god knowing the fall was true but still hoping it wasn't. 

I feel that way in a slightly different manner about Alan Greenspan.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I got the impression Tucker was interviewing a (for him) fallen god knowing the fall was true but still hoping it wasn't. 

Here's somebody who has a slightly different view.

:)

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alex Mohajer wrote an article for the Huffington Post entitled "The Legitimate President" which says, "The evidence is clear. Courts must use the broad discretionary powers with which they are vested to enjoin Donald Trump, an illegitimate president, from taking office."

Tucker invited him on his show for an interview...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The more they talk about Trump's alleged illegitimacy the more they'll tar and feather themselves--including Obama--with the same rubric. And the more they won't fix their own house but double down on what fucked them up.

I couldn't listen to the video with that guy serving up weak soup hardly warmed over. As soon as he mentioned the Russians I turned it off. If they keep on about the popular vote Trump will merely turn the Justice Dept into rooting out vote fraud and states that make it massively possible including California and New York plus Illinois. Soon we'll have the illegitimate presidency of John F. Kennedy and the illegitimacy of the Democrat party itself.

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is just hilarious.

It's a study in smugness by Bill Nye. Especially his implied threat out of left field at the end.

Way to go, Bill!

Winning over hearts and minds for the cause.

I honestly don't know why he went on Tucker's show.

Maybe he needed the paycheck and the publicity so he could pretend to himself he's relevant.

:)

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's not a "science guy." He's a mainstream media TV guy.

One thing the MSM must avoid is truth and its standards. Too hard and too much about what they are not.

As soon as someone says CC  AGW is "settled science," it's settled he's nothing to do with science.

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/8/2016 at 3:09 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Tucker Carlson with his new show on Fox has been kicking butt big-time.

Trump: 'Wiretap covers a lot of different things'

[Fox's video embed code is rigged to make  the thing play as soon as it is loaded. The link above goes to FoxNews and video excerpted from the Trump-Carlson showdown.]

Some wag reduced the interview to essential concepts:

Edited by william.scherk
Complex sets of things; thing. Things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now