I got banned for telling the guy posting Tucker Carlson on “Progressive Politics” that he’s a chickenshit coward because he couldn’t give a reason why he’s platforming Nazi shit and instead deflecting to a hundred other topics.
I’m not mad that I got banned, I was very rude to the guy, but it is pretty gross that they’re still promoting a reactionary white supremacist as “progressive politics.” I reported the post to the mod and got banned instead.
Oh well, that place has a history of hosting that kind of garbage anyway. No big loss.
That doesn’t make Tucker Carlson a progressive
I am not saying that he is a progressive. Just saying his opposition to the genocide is. I think we should still condemn him when he say supermasist things
Although you did not literally say that, you have implied it by association several times.
You also strongly defend one single idea that is only progressive when compared to, as you put it, the worst genocide in history. A pretty low bar, in my opinion. Yet everything else Tucker Carlson supports, the man’s entire identity, is as anti-progressive as one can be.
Edit: corrected spelling
Israel is explicitly talking about exterminating Palestinians. It is a very low bar to minimize the situation
nobody is minimizing anything-- and if you have to keep using extreme comparisons like hitler and Palestinian genocide just to make Tucker Carlson look like a progressive, you’ve made my point for me.
Being against genocide isn’t a progressive idea. It’s just a human one.
Another idiot who selectively read my comment. I never said Tucker is progressive.
Resorting to ad hominem attacks when you lose an argument is not the winning move.
Oh, and I already told you this in another comment when you “didn’t say that Tucker Carlson is a progressive”:
Your argument is full of logical flaws, and now you’ve started to repeat yourself. I guess I have to start reminding you of the mistakes you already made in your argument
I said that his stand on Israel is the only progressive stand he has and said in other and had multiple comment talking about how dangerous his other ideas are . I am sorry but someone who selectively read what he want to make the other person look bad is idiotic . There is only a problem with ad hominem attacks when it is not followed by real arguments.
just because you equivocated a few time doesn’t change your continued characterization, and I’m not to blame for the clear flaws in your argument, nor how they make you look.
as for “real arguments”, all I’ve done is point out the flaws in yours.
with examples