4 ms·

Consider the outrageous claim that Tucker Carlson made today (that NYT was "planning" to dox him). Was it true? Did he just cleverly "pre-empt" it? Or did he in

Consider the outrageous claim that Tucker Carlson made today (that NYT was "planning" to dox him). Was it true? Did he just cleverly "pre-empt" it? Or did he intentionally create a story to teach a lesson to the NYT reporters? Things are made much murkier when you then find out that, yes, indeed, he was actually doxxed before once. And people did actually show up to his house to protest. And even more amazingly, the first person account of this "witness" actually makes you believe if Tucker has a point. Why did they go to his house at night? And how can anyone, from the inside of a house, distinguish "firm knocking" vs trying to break down the door. Will you be calm enough and just say "Oh.. I thought he was going to break it. But it was just a firm knock, now that I think about it. Phew.. "? And why in fuck's name would you actually spray paint anything on Tucker's property? He is going to refer to it as vandalism, because if someone came to your house and peed on the front door, that's exactly how you would refer to it too. Or are you instead going to say "Well, it's just some organic material, it can always be wiped off"? https://archive.thinkprogress.org/i-was-at-the-protest-outside-tucker-carlsons-house-heres-what-actually-happened-665c2dc0cb67/ https://archive.thinkprogress.org/i-was-at-the-protest-outsi... At this point, there isn't actually any reason to believe one side over the other anymore. It is just complete hysterics on both sides.

bmarquez 6y ago
> Consider the outrageous claim Is it really outrageous when NYT has previously threatened to dox people? Most recently the owner of Slate Star Codex, which recieved a lot of attention on HN. https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/06/22/nyt-is-threatening-my-safety-by-revealing-my-real-name-so-i-am-deleting-the-blog/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/06/22/nyt-is-threatening-my-...
- Nasrudith 6y ago
  Yes, because you can't dox known public figures by definition. Donald Trump resides in 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Look I just doxxed the president! To claim knowingly claim something impossible by definition is outragous.
  - bmarquez 6y ago
    Just because Tucker is a public figure doesn't mean his private residence needs to be publicized by the NYT. Regardless, the rest of his family who live with him aren't public figures. Willfully conflating the White House and Tucker's house is disingenuous.
salimmadjd 6y ago
At least with corporate TV news, we have to remember there is no "one side over the other". It's mostly one side if clustering them by their economic goals. These are business entities that can quickly create short segments (based on the current events) designed to stir up emotion and interest among their targeted market segments to keep their eyeballs coming back and engaged while the TV ad is play. FOX has their segment, MSNBC learn from them and has theirs, CNN a bit less defined and as a result they are suffering compared to FOX and MSNBC. These entities are run by a group of executives that are focused on generating revenue. I don't believe MSNBC's executives are any more or less different ideologically than the FOX's executives.
tt433 6y ago
Any aspiring authoritarian knows that once the public can be convinced everyone is hysterical and biased, it's that much easier to get the average Joe to throw up his hands and say "whatever, I'll just support the strong man who will help me get mine, since other politicians are just going to get theirs, and I certainly can't trust the media." Tucker invented a story, regardless of his personal history, likely to deflect from the fact that he was recently named in a civil suit that details sexual assault by a Fox employee. Whatever your background, making things up for TV is not defensible. EDIT: and if his personal history induces him to invent narratives, it's clear he doesn't belong in his current profession
rendall 6y ago
"At this point, there isn't actually any reason to believe one side over the other anymore. It is just complete hysterics on both sides." Welcome to the skeptical moderates' table. We actively seek falsification of political assertions, particularly if it fits neatly in an overall narrative, particularly if we would like to be true. We are a small and beleaguered group.

bmarquez 6y ago

> Consider the outrageous claim Is it really outrageous when NYT has previously threatened to dox people? Most recently the owner of Slate Star Codex, which recieved a lot of attention on HN. https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/06/22/nyt-is-threatening-my-safety-by-revealing-my-real-name-so-i-am-deleting-the-blog/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/06/22/nyt-is-threatening-my-...

Nasrudith 6y ago
Yes, because you can't dox known public figures by definition. Donald Trump resides in 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Look I just doxxed the president! To claim knowingly claim something impossible by definition is outragous.
- bmarquez 6y ago
  Just because Tucker is a public figure doesn't mean his private residence needs to be publicized by the NYT. Regardless, the rest of his family who live with him aren't public figures. Willfully conflating the White House and Tucker's house is disingenuous.

salimmadjd 6y ago

At least with corporate TV news, we have to remember there is no "one side over the other". It's mostly one side if clustering them by their economic goals. These are business entities that can quickly create short segments (based on the current events) designed to stir up emotion and interest among their targeted market segments to keep their eyeballs coming back and engaged while the TV ad is play. FOX has their segment, MSNBC learn from them and has theirs, CNN a bit less defined and as a result they are suffering compared to FOX and MSNBC. These entities are run by a group of executives that are focused on generating revenue. I don't believe MSNBC's executives are any more or less different ideologically than the FOX's executives.

tt433 6y ago

Any aspiring authoritarian knows that once the public can be convinced everyone is hysterical and biased, it's that much easier to get the average Joe to throw up his hands and say "whatever, I'll just support the strong man who will help me get mine, since other politicians are just going to get theirs, and I certainly can't trust the media." Tucker invented a story, regardless of his personal history, likely to deflect from the fact that he was recently named in a civil suit that details sexual assault by a Fox employee. Whatever your background, making things up for TV is not defensible. EDIT: and if his personal history induces him to invent narratives, it's clear he doesn't belong in his current profession

rendall 6y ago

"At this point, there isn't actually any reason to believe one side over the other anymore. It is just complete hysterics on both sides." Welcome to the skeptical moderates' table. We actively seek falsification of political assertions, particularly if it fits neatly in an overall narrative, particularly if we would like to be true. We are a small and beleaguered group.