MONDAY, MAY 16, 2022
Tucker's replacement theory: Horrifically, mass shootings by deranged teenagers are part of our culture now.
Some of these shootings involve racial motives. Some of these shootings don't.
We can't meaningfully discuss the types of (extreme) mental illness which play into such impulses and such horrific behavior. Here, as elsewhere, we'll offer this thought:
We'd have a more useful public discourse if (carefully selected) mental health professionals were more commonly involved.
How might we understand the forces which lead certain teens to engage in such behavior? We'd like to see such questions posed to (carefully selected) medical / psychiatric specialists.
In the current case, the horrific shooting in Buffalo has generated a great deal of discussion of so-called "replacement theory." Tucker Carlson is often mentioned. We have a confession to make:
By happenstance, we were watching Carlson's program in April 2021 when he offered his fullest discussion of this general topic. For today, we can only bring ourselves to tell you this:
We think the transcript and the videotape are actually worth reviewing. To do so, just click here.
In our view, Carlson is basically lost to the world, morally and intellectually. As we noted a few weeks ago, he sometimes starts his show, at 9 P.M. Eastern, with a fairly reasonable premise—but, by 9:02 P.M., his wild embellishments and his ugly, unfounded ascriptions of motive make his braindead pseudo-discussions extremely hard to watch.
(And of course, his gratuitous insults.)
Regarding his discussion that night, we're only going to say today that we thought it was worth watching. In fact, we're going to make an awful confession:
We came away thinking that we'd rarely seen a cable news monologue which contained as much information as his monologue did that night.
Stating the obvious, changes in the demographics of a jurisdiction can produce changes in that jurisdiction's politics. Carlson sketched several examples that night. Some of his examples involved matters of ethnicity and / or race. At least one of his examples did not.
We happened to be watching Carlson's program that night. Concerning the idea that Democratic motives are always pure and non-political, we can only borrow this question from Michael Corleone:
Who's being naive now, Kay?
As our nation's tribal warfare unfolds, we live in a badly fallen world. Leaders our own blue tribe may sometimes be compromised, or at least so we sometimes are prepared to imagine here.
"In the current case, the horrific shooting in Buffalo has generated a great deal of discussion of so-called "replacement theory.""ReplyDelete
Don't worry, dear Bob, surely this massacre will be as ignored and quickly forgotten as the Waukesha Christmas parade massacre last year.
He-he, kidding, dear Bob, just kidding.
"In our view, Carlson is basically lost to the world, morally and intellectually."
Oh dear. Speaking like a faithful BlueAnon dembot, aren't we? Or, as Jimmy Dore calls you people: shitlibs.
Tsk. Oh well, what can we say.
Would you consider saying less?Delete
You certainly never had anything
of value to say.
"Horrifically, mass shootings by deranged teenagers are part of our culture now. "ReplyDelete
No -- this is not part of our culture. It is an aberration. Further, deranged shootings are done by adult men more often than teens. Calling them "deranged" implies that we know the cause to be mental illness, when that is not established, especially in this current case.
The most obvious cause of these shootings is the widespread availability of guns. Somerby might like to claim that guns are part of our culture, but that is only true for the subculture within the US that allows guns to be given as Christmas and birthday presents, to young men with mental problems or violent political beliefs.
Somerby is willing to hand our culture over to such people. I am not. Like many, if not most liberals, I want to see reasonable controls on gun ownership. I vote for candidates who are willing to impose such controls in order to prevent more of these shootings. Somerby has never advocated any such response, so it is hard to see him as any kind of liberal.
It is not normal for adolescents to obtain guns and kill people in supermarkets or churches.
If you have trouble accessing the link to Fox News, copy the link URL, go to Fox News and then paste it into your URL at the top of the browser. That should get around the issue.ReplyDelete
Bob misses the point. If Tucker just said “Liberals have crass political motives for legalizing illegal aliens, they just want a lot more Dem voters,” that’s a totally fair political argument, and he would never get accused of pandering to white nationalists. But when he talks about “replacement,” or “white nationalism is a hoax,” or “diversity is not a strength,” he’s dog-whistling to the worst of the worst. Interesting too that Bob has to reach back more than a year for a Tucker episode that isn’t an open appeal to racists.ReplyDelete
"Regarding his discussion that night, we're only going to say today that we thought it was worth watching. In fact, we're going to make an awful confession:ReplyDelete
We came away thinking that we'd rarely seen a cable news monologue which contained as much information as his monologue did that night."
How ironic that Somerby is today illustrating for us how people become radicalized by watching extremists on the media.
How cute that he thinks that if he says some mean things about Tucker here, we won't think he is advocating Carlson's show.
Let’s be specific about the “some mean things”. Somerby said Carlson is “lost to the world, morally and intellectually” that he engages in “wild embellishments” and “ugly, unfounded ascriptions of motive”, resulting in “braindead pseudo-discussions” that are “extremely hard to watch”.Delete
But you were able to see that Somerby was actually “advocating” for Carlson’s show because he found something of value in a single episode.
I was completely bamboozled by Somerby! (I sometimes still cling to the belief that words have meaning). Thanks for straightening me out!
Hey another logical poster. The name kind of gives it away too!Delete
Well as you're probably realizing, many of the comments here seek to attack Somerby first and foremost, and logic plays a back seat to simply achieving an attack. Ends justifies the means.
Bob trying to gaslight his readers into believing some liberal could possibly be more condescending to Republican voters than Republican politicians are, is a classic of the genre.Delete
Somerby said that Carlson provided a whole bunch of interesting information and intriguing ideas. That leaves one wondering which part of Carlson's show Somerby found lost to the world, braindead, etc. He really should tell us because without that info, people are left to decide for themselves and that opens the door to endorsement of whatever white supremacist garbage Carlson his hawking. This is how Somerby's vagueness results in a wink and nod to the alt-right, while he tells everyone to go watch the guy, as he has numerous times before.Delete
If you think Somerby has distanced himself from Carlson's soul-rot, think again. This is a non-disavowel and Somerby is covering his ass, just as he does by calling each reporter a good, decent person, just before he savages them. No one here is fooled except excessively literal morons who are not-coincidentally Somerby's fan boys.
Somerby said Carlson is “lost to the world, morally and intellectually” that he engages in “wild embellishments” and “ugly, unfounded ascriptions of motive”, resulting in “braindead pseudo-discussions” that are “extremely hard to watch”.Delete
"Somerby's vagueness results in a wink and nod to the alt-right..."
You truly couldn't make this stuff up.
an excessively literal moron
Beam me up Spock! The native lifeforms do not appear to be of sufficient intelligence to merit further study.Delete
"Leaders our own blue tribe may sometimes be compromised, or at least so we sometimes are prepared to imagine here.Delete
Idiotic comments to the side, we found Carlson's monologue intriguing that night."
On what planet does this sound like support for liberals and disavowal of conservatives?
I take "excessively literal" to mean the belief that words have meaning.Delete
4:06, you’ve beautifully illustrated the crux of the problem.Delete
Somerby is most decidedly not trying to offer generalized support or disapproval to either side. As always, his support or disapproval pertains to specific statements made by a specific speaker at a specific point in time on a specific subject.
Surprising as it may sound, it is possible to do this. It’s called thinking (as opposed to cheering for) and it’s not a team sport.
Nice exchange, but Bob does not treat each side the same. Can you imagine one of his hate rants against Rachel Maddow ending with grudging praise for her information content? Amusingly, his attack on Nicole Wallace ended with contempt for her guests being rich.Delete
Tucker Carlson has changed his persona over the years quite a bit. He is paid
piles of money by Fox to deliver
the goods. Think that doesn’t
explain a lot Bob? Now whose
If you think Bob isn't a Conservative, I can see how you believe his words have meaning. However, with Conservatives, it's a waste of time thinking words have meanings.
"Words have meaning" is like a caricature of caveman speak. It is like saying "Hulk angry." It is like saying "the sun has temperature."Delete
Yes words have meaning but they do not convey much without context.
Somerby is doing his "Hitler was bad but he had the trains run on time" schtick.
Morons like Spock and 3:07 are apparently unaware how perfectly they encapsulate the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Normally, “words have meaning” is trivial, tautological. But as you adroitly point out, words’ meanings are usually embedded within and dependent on a context.Delete
In the post under discussion, Somerby demeans and degrades Carlson from a wide variety of angles—basically does a succinct but complete takedown of Carlson—yet multiple commenters pleasure themselves by interpreting him as supporting Carlson. The plain meaning of Somerby’s words is ignored.
So yes, in this context it is necessary to point out that words have meaning.
The context is that Somerby is recommending a Carlson show on demographic change right after a white supremacist shot and killed 11 people in the name of preserving the white race. The rest is window-dressing.Delete
"Concerning the idea that Democratic motives are always pure and non-political, we can only borrow this question from Michael Corleone:"ReplyDelete
This is an incredibly silly remark. No one claims that Democratic motives are non-political. The Democrats are a Political Party for God's sake. We do claim that Democrats are more willing to support policies for the common good, unlike Republicans -- but that is pretty obvious.
There are lots of places to read about how changing demographics are going to affect our nation, without watching racist xenophobes like Tucker Carlson.ReplyDelete
We are a nation founded by and upon the shoulders of immigrants. That is nothing new. There have always been nativists and nativist movements in the US. That is nothing new either. You don't need Tucker Carlson to understand demographic impacts on politics.
Cue the corporate-owned media (AKA the media) calling the Buffalo shooter a “lone wolf” instead of “standard-issue Republican”.ReplyDelete
He plagiarized his manifesto from the Republican Party platform.Delete
This comment has been removed by the author.Delete
The so-called "liberal media" are the propaganda arm of the Right.Delete
The difference between the Buffalo kid and Rittenhouse is very slight.Delete
In the scene in "The Godfather," the once gentle andReplyDelete
moral Micheal Corleone has made a decision to join the
world of murder and crime. Kay has just stated that
Presidents and Senators don't have people killed.
(we are not talking about times of war here). So
does Bob think Presidents and Senators have
Gordon Liddy claimed the White House had him
stalking a journalist they were planing to have him
killed. Given Nixon's state of mind in those days, it's
not an impossible claim, though it has never been
confirmed with any firmness. Liddy was a nutcase.
So, it is not surprising Bob does not want to go too
deeply into what he off putting about Carlson. It
makes his justification of Carlson less disturbing.
From Digby's blog:ReplyDelete
"It’s interesting to see how splitting from the GOP on one issue can pull the veil from your eyes on others:
“The House GOP leadership has enabled white nationalism, white supremacy, and anti-semitism,” Cheney wrote on Twitter. “History has taught us that what begins with words ends in far worse. @GOP leaders must renounce and reject these views and those who hold them.”
Rep. Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill., the only other Republican who serves alongside Cheney on the House Jan. 6 committee, tweeted that his “replacement theory” is that “we need to replace” House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., and Reps. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y.; Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga.; and Madison Cawthorn, R-N.C., among others.
“The replacement theory they are pushing/tolerating is getting people killed,” Kinzinger wrote.
The congressman in another tweet again called out Stefanik for pushing the “white replacement theory” while serving as the No. 3 Republican in the House, a position Cheney was removed from for “demanding truth.”
I doubt either of these people are becoming liberals but I don’t think they would have said these things before they were ostracized by their party."
The question is: why is Somerby suddenly drinking the Kool-Aid?Delete
It’s possible Bob has been bought off. But it’s a quarter century of pay offs now if it happened.Delete
Somerby started doing this a little bit when Bush mentioned those 16 words in his State of the Union, the ones that left people thinking Saddam was developing nuclear weapons, but Somerby did not go full force until around when Trump starting running for president in 2015. I could be wrong on the full force part, this is my memory. I do remember how weird Somerby's take was on the the Bush thing.Delete
Some of the Left New Media have talked about how they were approached by wealthy people to start shifting their content to the right.Delete
Coin is strong, especially when integrity is weak.
FOX preaches to the converted.ReplyDelete
The problem is the media and the politicians are treating Fox like a legitimate news organization.Delete
How did they become converted?Delete
It is complicated, but likely due to unresolved childhood trauma, followed by the alienating nature of a society run by capitalists.Delete
You're missing one other option for Tucker and Republicans, Bob. And that's that they can start offering a product that's appealing to racial minorities and minorities, instead of going in the opposite direction. Many of those minorities are, in fact, socially conservative. The Republicans could start with eliminating the dog whistles that became bullhorns under Trump. The other demographic "replacement" they are worried about is white people who are not college educated with ones who are.ReplyDelete
Somerby routinely calls for Rachel Maddow’s firing.ReplyDelete
Has he ever called for Carlson to be fired?
Somerby wishes that mental health experts (check that—“carefully selected” mental health experts) would opine about the motives of someone like the Buffalo shooter.
Two questions arise: how would any mental health expert know precisely why this specific individual carried out this specific crime without examining the perpetrator?
Secondly, Somerby juxtaposes this wish for mental health expert opinion with a discussion of Carlson’s show, specifically his “replacement” theory, without suggesting there might be a connection. Indeed, Somerby says Carlson made a lot of sense that one time back in April 2021. (Question: How did Somerby remember the specific date of a Carlson show he “happened” to see a year ago?)
But, Somerby says, Carlson engages in wild embellishments and ugly, unfounded ascriptions of motive and braindead pseudo-discussions. Given that, as Somerby has often pointed out, white males without college degrees tend to vote Republican, should Carlson and the GOP be held in any way culpable for their deliberate wild embellishments and ugly, unfounded ascriptions of motive and braindead pseudo-discussions that tend to rile up the uneducated and mentally ill?
Or is Carlson himself to be pitied for his mental illness?
This isn’t to say that Carlson may not occasionally state facts, but it is to say that these facts are most always used to bolster his deliberate wild embellishments and ugly, unfounded ascriptions of motive and braindead pseudo-discussions. Someone like this should not be on the air.
And Somerby ignores the increasing eliminationist rhetoric of the GOP and media figures like Carlson.
Picking up on an earlier comment, what are we to make of someone who describes a well-known person as engaging in “deliberate wild embellishments and ugly, unfounded ascriptions of motive and braindead pseudo-discussions”, but hey, you should check out this monologue he did last year!ReplyDelete
It’s like saying, yeah, that Hitler is an insane murderous authoritarian sociopath, but you should totally check out his speech from last April. Man, was it impressive…,