However, not everything your enemy says or does has to be incorrect.
I mean…what he’s saying is incorrect though. I think what Israel is doing is horrendous and should’ve been stopped as soon as possible, but this is what he is focusing on -
“A consistent but almost never noted theme of American foreign policy is that it is always the Christians who suffer,” the broadcaster said at the start of Tucker Carlson Uncensored. “When there’s a war abroad that the United States is funding, it is Christians who tend to die disproportionately.”
He doesn’t give a shit about what’s actually happening. He just wants to use it to prop up this “Christian oppression” narrative to pander to his audience, and feel righteous blaming Israel while he’s at it.
Did you read the full article because it also lists several valid points that he made and then attempts to equate everything as anti-jew and antisemitism. What he said may not be accurate, but saying something bad about Israel does not equate to being anti-jew or antisemitic
Did you read the full article because it also lists several valid points that he made and then attempts to equate everything as anti-jew and antisemitism.
This is extremely vague. Can you be more specific?
The article talks about Israeli oppression of Palestinians is bad. It’s quite clear that is not the same as antisemitism. It doesn’t condemn anti-Israel stuff, it condemns antisemitism.
It also makes the point that religious right wingers don’t care about antisemitism, just the anti-Israel stuff, which I think is an important takeaway.
Not trying to be rude, but it kinda seems like the person you’re replying to read it more thoroughly than you did.
Believe me, I’m not trying to defend the article. I didn’t read it because I don’t want to give that shit views. But I’m not about to defend this asshole who’s not even pretending to give a shit about the actual people dying. Both parties can be wrong.
I don’t see any direct quote of Tucker (mind you I don’t believe him to be an actual news analyst myself) in this article. Supposedly he praised the “strength” of Hama’s (the word strength is the only word quoted here). It’s also mentioned (without quote) he said Israel is hurting Christians.
The rebuttal by the article author:
It’s true that Palestinian Christians are suffering, though it’s largely because they are Palestinians rather than because they are Christians.
The author sees hypocrisy in the right media:
Substantively, it shows that the right is willing to forgive or downplay antisemitism unless it’s somehow linked to criticism of Israel — in which case there’s a zero-tolerance policy.
Unless I missed it, we need to find an additional source to see what Tucker said. I’m not really down for a dumpster dive into a Tucker “news” rabbit hole.
Ok? It’s a bad article. So what? What do you expect anyone else to do about that? You demand information, information that is very easily found, yet refuse to make any effort yourself. What an entitled, lazy position to take.
I didn’t demand a thing. I mentioned the flaws in the article. I specifically said I wasn’t going to dumpster dive looking for the info the article should have provided.
I specifically said I wasn’t going to dumpster dive looking for the info the article should have provided.
No. You said this -
Unless I missed it, we need to find an additional source to see what Tucker said.
If an article doesn’t have the information you want/need, you look for a better article, not demand “we” find something and then refuse to do anything yourself. Hell, you should be doing that for pretty much any article. That’s basic media literacy.
I mean…what he’s saying is incorrect though. I think what Israel is doing is horrendous and should’ve been stopped as soon as possible, but this is what he is focusing on -
He doesn’t give a shit about what’s actually happening. He just wants to use it to prop up this “Christian oppression” narrative to pander to his audience, and feel righteous blaming Israel while he’s at it.
Did you read the full article because it also lists several valid points that he made and then attempts to equate everything as anti-jew and antisemitism. What he said may not be accurate, but saying something bad about Israel does not equate to being anti-jew or antisemitic
This is extremely vague. Can you be more specific?
The article talks about Israeli oppression of Palestinians is bad. It’s quite clear that is not the same as antisemitism. It doesn’t condemn anti-Israel stuff, it condemns antisemitism.
It also makes the point that religious right wingers don’t care about antisemitism, just the anti-Israel stuff, which I think is an important takeaway.
Not trying to be rude, but it kinda seems like the person you’re replying to read it more thoroughly than you did.
Believe me, I’m not trying to defend the article. I didn’t read it because I don’t want to give that shit views. But I’m not about to defend this asshole who’s not even pretending to give a shit about the actual people dying. Both parties can be wrong.
I don’t see any direct quote of Tucker (mind you I don’t believe him to be an actual news analyst myself) in this article. Supposedly he praised the “strength” of Hama’s (the word strength is the only word quoted here). It’s also mentioned (without quote) he said Israel is hurting Christians.
The rebuttal by the article author:
The author sees hypocrisy in the right media:
Unless I missed it, we need to find an additional source to see what Tucker said. I’m not really down for a dumpster dive into a Tucker “news” rabbit hole.
I literally provided a direct quote. You not feeling “down’” to verify it isn’t really anyone else’s problem.
I shouldn’t have to do a “journalist’s” work.
Ok? It’s a bad article. So what? What do you expect anyone else to do about that? You demand information, information that is very easily found, yet refuse to make any effort yourself. What an entitled, lazy position to take.
I didn’t demand a thing. I mentioned the flaws in the article. I specifically said I wasn’t going to dumpster dive looking for the info the article should have provided.
No. You said this -
If an article doesn’t have the information you want/need, you look for a better article, not demand “we” find something and then refuse to do anything yourself. Hell, you should be doing that for pretty much any article. That’s basic media literacy.
Also, again, I already provided a quote.
….I’m sorry, what?!
When was the last global event where Christian’s disproportionately were killed over any other religion?