[dleary]

But we know, with absolute certainty, from the Dominion lawsuit subpoenas, that Tucker Carlson was privately telling people that Trump was awful, while publicly saying the opposite.

His private texts include, "We are very, very close to being able to ignore Trump most nights. I truly can't wait.”

And

"I hate him passionately. ... I can't handle much more of this”.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tucker-carlson-endorses-donald-...

He was sending these texts while publicly repeating the standard Fox News lines about how great Trump is, etc.

How can you ever consider him honest, after this?

[austin-cheney]

This isn’t that. To consider his, or anyone else’s, honesty I compare what they say to the evidence they present and contrast that against competing claims from other sources.

[kbrkbr]

So what you mean by "honest" is "they believe the same things as facts like I do, and draw the same conclusions?"

Or put differently: "they have the same world view as I have?"

[motorest]

> So what you mean by "honest" is "they believe the same things as facts like I do, and draw the same conclusions?"

I think it means "I am a sucker with no critical thinking skills and fell for their propaganda".

The attempts to whitewash and normalize Russian assets such as Tucker Carlson also give pause. It's hard to believe someone can be this gullible, specially after being presented with facts and still doubling down on whitewashing the character.

[austin-cheney]

By honest I mean their opinions more closely align to the multitude of evidence available. Other opinions upon that same evidence are welcome.

[kbrkbr]

So you are doing the same as all of us: checking the quality of evidence best we can and then weighing it best we can.

But then somehow you feel the need to make your opinion and the opinion of the people that somehow align with you (or vice versa) somehow more objective or ethically better by calling it "honest", or best aligned with the evidence (as if people could not disagree on the quality of evidence, or take into account other things) or the like.

That's the part I wholeheartedly disagree with you. We're all blind men touching an elephant.

[mdhb]

Is there something special about you that has you convinced you’re not being tricked? Like do you think you have some exceptionally good bullshit detector? I’m genuinely curious about the mentality here.

What lead you to believe you can take two people like Tucker Carlson and MTG who are PRIMARILY known for spouting bullshit and you can somehow magically decipher the signal from the noise? Is it just the topic of Israel that you agree with them on? What are you actually comparing them against? I’d love to know more about what you’re describing looks like in practice because it sounds very handwavy at the moment and maybe it would be a better discussion with concrete details.

[austin-cheney]

Because in this case most politicians are performing double speak and failing to directly answer questions about recent Israel conduct. Many of these politicians claiming in private what most of us are seeing in the news. It is refreshing to have at least some politicians step up to the plate and directly speak to the numbers and multitude of evidence.

Likewise consider the opposite. Until recently I really respected Buttigieg, but when asked about Israel he cannot answer the question. He hopelessly looks for a moderate safe way out and it looks really incompetent.

[mdhb]

Not trying to be rude but that answer is in no way related to the questions I was asking.

[zahlman]

> Not trying to be rude

> do you think you have some exceptionally good bullshit detector?

> you can somehow magically decipher

It is abundantly clear that you are, in fact, trying to be rude.

> Be kind. Don't be snarky.

> Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.

You were originally responding to:

> To consider his, or anyone else’s, honesty I compare what they say to the evidence they present and contrast that against competing claims from other sources.

Nothing about this requires extraordinary skill or "magic". Determining whether what Tucker Carlson said is true, works exactly the same way as determining whether what anyone else said is true.

[austin-cheney]

I objectively answered your question to the best of my actual personal opinion. I just didn’t provide the subjectively baited answer you were hoping for.

[mdhb]

I don’t understand in what universe you think you objectively answered it to the best of your ability when you literally didn’t respond to a single point in the question and just talked about another topic entirely.

It’s not a trick question… I really want to understand what lead you to think that you can take known bullshitters and somehow seperate the fact from fiction. It’s just really confusing I think to me and others in this thread how on earth you arrived at the positions you did?

You seem to be quite focused on the idea that Israel is committing genocide which isn’t a controversial statement for a lot of people but I don’t understand why you hold up Tucker Carlson over the ICC who have much more credibility on the topic and came to the same conclusion. Why MTG and not AOC for example if you mean outspoken politicians specifically? The thinking patterns just seem incredibly strange and I wanted to know what you’re actually thinking here.

[motorest]

> Because in this case most politicians are performing double speak and failing to directly answer questions about recent Israel conduct. Many of these politicians claiming in private what most of us are seeing in the news. It is refreshing to have at least some politicians step up to the plate and directly speak to the numbers and multitude of evidence.

Wait a minute, you were already faced with the fact that the likes of Tucker Carlson defend positions in public that they personally criticize and attack in less public settings.

And yet, even after being faced with that information, you still opt to ignore it and whitewash Russian assets such as Tucker Carlson as being this paragon of objectivity?

I'm starting to wonder what you are trying to do with this thread.

[austin-cheney]

So is he lying about his opinions on Israel? I don’t know. If you are actually interested in finding out then go do that.

[motorest]

> So is he lying about his opinions on Israel?

You should cut the act. Playing dumb doesn't help your case.