The True Face of Tucker Carlson

[Enoch the Red]

The govt machine empowered to find and deport immigrants frequently subject them—as well as innocent brown citizens—to an excessively dehumanizing process. The officials tasked with this duty subject the people they've gotten their claws into to dehumanizing treatment, both physically and verbally. The govt's rhetoric is dehumanizing. Implementation of the govt's policies must be interpreted in the context of that rhetoric and those demonstrable acts of dehumanization. Denying someone service may not be a racist act in and of itself, in the abstract, but denying them service on the basis of racism, in a racist manner (eg. coupled with racist taunts), would be a racist act. Similarly, deporting a person may not be a particularly dehumanizing act in and of itself, but arresting, imprisoning and deporting him in a grossly dehumanizing fashion, to further a deeply dehumanizing agenda, is a dehumanizing act.

Dehumanization is not a simple binary state; a person can be subjected to varying degrees of dehumanizing treatment, of varying degrees of rightness. Putting a human being in a cage can be dehumanizing, but you can at least imprison someone without dehumanizing them more than you absolutely must.

Hopefully the irony of using dehumanizing terms in reference to ICE/Border Patrol agents is not lost.

[Aimless]

Hopefully the irony of using dehumanizing terms in reference to ICE/Border Patrol agents is not lost.

It was intentional. Did you just have some sort of galaxy brain moment where you thought you'd discovered some sort of clever gotcha? It falls entirely within the norms of conventional speech, whereas the US govt's and ICE-officials' dehumanizing rhetoric—evoking vermin and worse—and actions fall far outside those norms.

[Enoch the Red]

It was intentional. Did you just have some sort of galaxy brain moment where you thought you'd discovered some sort of clever gotcha? It falls entirely within the norms of conventional speech, whereas the US govt's and ICE-officials' dehumanizing rhetoric—evoking vermin and worse—and actions fall far outside those norms.

If you want to hold yourself to the same standard used by those you are decrying be my guest. You might try aiming higher though.

[Khendraja'aro]

If you want to hold yourself to the same standard used by those you are decrying be my guest. You might try aiming higher though.

I've yet to see you taking a stance regarding. Why exactly is that?

[Enoch the Red]

I've yet to see you taking a stance regarding. Why exactly is that?

A stance on immigration? It's mostly unchanged since the last time I was involved in a discussion on this topic. I want more legal immigration, and for the whole process to be faster and easier for everyone involved. I think illegal immigrants broadly are like anybody else, (a mix of good, bad, and indifferent, heavily weighted towards the good and indifferent) but they are doing a huge disservice to those attempting to migrate legally to our country. I don't think they deserve to be rewarded in the face of those attempting to jump through all the hoops legally. I am in favor of a path to citizenship, opposed to quotas, and in favor of voluntary assimilation.

I also think that very little attention was paid to this when the Deporter in Chief was in office, which is broadly why this doesn't pass the smell test.

I see no difference between your views and Lewkowski's.

Of course you don't. Your views over time have become more and more like those of a child. Simplistic, one dimensional, and self serving.

[Steely Glint]

and self serving.

You think Minx wants to illegally enter the U.S?

[Aimless]

You think Minx wants to illegally enter the U.S?

He feels I am a dishonest debater. Frankly, I find it difficult to care about this opinion from a person who pretends to be unable to understand how my decision to use an animal metaphor may differ from speaking of—and treating—vulnerable individuals in a grossly dehumanizing manner, such as speaking of them as if they were vermin, forcibly taking them from their families, locking them up in cages, subjecting them to constant humiliation, denying them food and the means of maintaining basic hygiene, terrorizing their families and communities etc. To be perfectly honest, I was trying to remember the word "clutches", but I have no qualms about describing dehumanization as being a predatory and animalistic act that is less than worthy of humanity. I also believe humans should be free, but have no qualms in principle about the imprisonment of kidnappers. I guess that means I have been owned by a very intelligent argument?

[Aimless]

Of course you don't. Your views over time have become more and more like those of a child. Simplistic, one dimensional, and self serving.

Based on that impassioned defense, I must believe you can distinguish between my use of dehumanizing language and the US govt's use of dehumanizing language and policies after all, and were just pretending to be a dimestore Tuquoqueski who can only think in either/or black/white terms for inscrutable galaxy brain reasons. An odd strategy, but you do you bro, you do you

[GGT]

A stance on immigration? It's mostly unchanged since the last time I was involved in a discussion on this topic. I want more legal immigration, and for the whole process to be faster and easier for everyone involved. I think illegal immigrants broadly are like anybody else, (a mix of good, bad, and indifferent, heavily weighted towards the good and indifferent) but they are doing a huge disservice to those attempting to migrate legally to our country. I don't think they deserve to be rewarded in the face of those attempting to jump through all the hoops legally. I am in favor of a path to citizenship, opposed to quotas, and in favor of voluntary assimilation.

Good luck with that in the Trump era! They're making it harder to attempt the legal path by 'metering' asylum claims, forcing them to wait in Mexico, and not providing enough judges to process their claims. The 'disservice' comes from the administration first, and it appears to be intentional.

Also, today it was announced that *legal* immigration will be made harder, too. Not just by lower quotas or limits to Family Reunification (aka chain migration).....but new criteria that many *citizens* couldn't even pass: a good credit score and proof of private health insurance!

Plus not having used public assistance in any way (unless you're in the military), and we all know that the military accepts non-citizens, and even promises military service as a pathway to citizenship.

It's all so absurd.

[Khendraja'aro]

A stance on immigration? It's mostly unchanged since the last time I was involved in a discussion on this topic. I want more legal immigration, and for the whole process to be faster and easier for everyone involved. I think illegal immigrants broadly are like anybody else, (a mix of good, bad, and indifferent, heavily weighted towards the good and indifferent) but they are doing a huge disservice to those attempting to migrate legally to our country. I don't think they deserve to be rewarded in the face of those attempting to jump through all the hoops legally. I am in favor of a path to citizenship, opposed to quotas, and in favor of voluntary assimilation..

You misunderstand: I've yet to see a stance from you regarding the current atrocities your border patrol pulls. Don't weasel out now by talking about generalities. We're talking about very specific instances of wrongdoing here.

[Enoch the Red]

You misunderstand: I've yet to see a stance from you regarding the current atrocities your border patrol pulls. Don't weasel out now by talking about generalities. We're talking about very specific instances of wrongdoing here.

Very specific instances of wrongdoing? If a border patrol agent does something specifically wrong, prosecute them. If the agency is doing something wrong, (see family separation) change the policy and replace the politicians and bureaucrats who pushed for it and implemented it. If you want more specifics I am going to need more information from you about what exactly you want my opinion on - I was responding to generalities about dehumanization and not specific instances of wrong doing.

I am likely less sympathetic to that behavior than you believe.

This is a bad take, which you should delete.

There's no fucking obligation to show 'kindness and respect' to people who a) won't reciprocate and b) are actively harming others, if you want to take that kind of extreme pacifist position in your own day-to-day encounters that's your prerogative and, in a way, admirable (though a somewhat bizarre stance for some who advocates being allowed to carry weapons for self-defence) but you don't have a right to tell others they should respond that way.

Showing basic kindness and respect to everyone does not require you to condone, accept, or be passive when someone is actively harming another. Well trained police officers show respect to suspects in their custody, even if they know they have committed a horrible crime. They do not curse at them, do not physically violate them beyond what is absolutely necessary, and do not go out of their way to antagonize them. Suspects who are injured are given treatment. I would expect as much, if not better for those who have not raped, murdered, or maimed. Who may in fact only be guilty of disagreeing with me, or having a different perspective or understanding. How they choose to respond to that is outside my locus of control.

If the time ever came where it became necessary for me to defend myself or others with lethal force, I would not relish it. I pray that day never comes. I go out of my way to avoid situations where it might be necessary - and part of that is trying to treat everyone I encounter as though they matter, and deserve respect, even if they do not feel the same obligation towards me.

If you believe there is no obligation to show kindness and respect to others regardless of whether or not they reciprocate, that is your choice. However, it is a bad one - one that more often than not leads to bitterness, unhappiness, and destruction. You might be comfortable telling your children that the world would be a better place if everything was transactional - an eye for an eye* - I am not.


*I know, I know wiggin...

[Aimless]

If you want to hold yourself to the same standard used by those you are decrying be my guest. You might try aiming higher though.

I see no difference between your views and Lewkowski's.

[Ominous Gamer]

If you want to hold yourself to the same standard used by those you are decrying be my guest. You might try aiming higher though.

fuck this and fuck you. These are people's lives that are needlessly being upended, and sometimes ended, for mere political points. You don't come in here pretending to be on some sort of high horse complaining about decency because the side you favor had language used against it, that itself has used (and worse) for years.

[Enoch the Red]

fuck this and fuck you. These are people's lives that are needlessly being upended, and sometimes ended, for mere political points. You don't come in here pretending to be on some sort of high horse complaining about decency because the side you favor had language used against it, that itself has used (and worse) for years.

Are you done? I don't favor any mainstream political party. Republicans are wrong on immigration - period. That is what I have said in the past and will continue to say in years to come.

People can be wrong about a topic - deeply and horribly wrong - and still be human. They can support policies I believe to be bad, even harmful, and still deserve basic decency and respect. They can be racists, misogynists, murderers and rapists and still have humanity. I find it deeply unsettling that people can in one breath push for more humane, decent, and compassionate treatment of convicted criminals, and in the next treat their fellow citizens that they have policy disagreements with as an enemy to be fought tooth and nail. And it is unsettling not because criminals aren't deserving of basic respect and understanding, but because we should be going out of our way to treat everyone that way, especially the people we disagree with. It is foundational to having a functioning society. It is the same thing I tell my children every night before I put them to bed. It is important to be kind and respectful not just to those who make it easy to be kind and respectful to, but to show kindness and respect to everyone - including those who are not being kind to you. I don't view basic respect and decency as belonging to or springing from a high horse - it is a birthright that belongs to everyone.

The fact that you somehow missed that much of this was happening under the Obama administration (mass deportations - people's lives being upended, children in cages, poor conditions in detention facilities, and yes, even family separations though admittedly not to the same scale and not as a matter of policy) does point to this being used as an opportunity for scoring political points.

You think Minx wants to illegally enter the U.S?

I think Minx wants to believe that his ideological opposition aren't just wrong, misguided, or mistaken. They are evil, and because they are evil -ists anything and everything is fair game when it comes to how to confront and deal with them. It isn't bad to hate them, it is good. It isn't bad to think of them as less than human, it is what they deserve. It is not just self-serving, it is self-destructive. This is the same road that leads to dangerous Lewk thinking, a path that I have seen Minx veering down for some time now.

[Steely Glint]

Are you done? I don't favor any mainstream political party. Republicans are wrong on immigration - period. That is what I have said in the past and will continue to say in years to come.

People can be wrong about a topic - deeply and horribly wrong - and still be human. They can support policies I believe to be bad, even harmful, and still deserve basic decency and respect. They can be racists, misogynists, murderers and rapists and still have humanity. I find it deeply unsettling that people can in one breath push for more humane, decent, and compassionate treatment of convicted criminals, and in the next treat their fellow citizens that they have policy disagreements with as an enemy to be fought tooth and nail. And it is unsettling not because criminals aren't deserving of basic respect and understanding, but because we should be going out of our way to treat everyone that way, especially the people we disagree with. It is foundational to having a functioning society. It is the same thing I tell my children every night before I put them to bed. It is important to be kind and respectful not just to those who make it easy to be kind and respectful to, but to show kindness and respect to everyone - including those who are not being kind to you. I don't view basic respect and decency as belonging to or springing from a high horse - it is a birthright that belongs to everyone.

The fact that you somehow missed that much of this was happening under the Obama administration (mass deportations - people's lives being upended, children in cages, poor conditions in detention facilities, and yes, even family separations though admittedly not to the same scale and not as a matter of policy) does point to this being used as an opportunity for scoring political points.



I think Minx wants to believe that his ideological opposition aren't just wrong, misguided, or mistaken. They are evil, and because they are evil -ists anything and everything is fair game when it comes to how to confront and deal with them. It isn't bad to hate them, it is good. It isn't bad to think of them as less than human, it is what they deserve. It is not just self-serving, it is self-destructive. This is the same road that leads to dangerous Lewk thinking, a path that I have seen Minx veering down for some time now.

This is a bad take, which you should delete.

There's no fucking obligation to show 'kindness and respect' to people who a) won't reciprocate and b) are actively harming others, if you want to take that kind of extreme pacifist position in your own day-to-day encounters that's your prerogative and, in a way, admirable (though a somewhat bizarre stance for some who advocates being allowed to carry weapons for self-defence) but you don't have a right to tell others they should respond that way.

[LittleFuzzy]

Hopefully the irony of using dehumanizing terms in reference to ICE/Border Patrol agents is not lost.

What dehumanizing terms. "Nazi"? That's not dehumanizing. That partly encapsulates the whole problem. Forgetting that the Nazis and fascism in general were and are all too human is a mistake being made by the defenders of this kind of behavior in the first place. Hannah Arendt and The Banality of Evil come to mind here.

[Aimless]

What dehumanizing terms. "Nazi"? That's not dehumanizing. That partly encapsulates the whole problem. Forgetting that the Nazis and fascism in general were and are all too human is a mistake being made by the defenders of this kind of behavior in the first place. Hannah Arendt and The Banality of Evil come to mind here.

"claws"

[Steely Glint]

"claws"

Seriously?