Posted on 09/03/2024 4:22:24 PM PDT by Miami Rebel
and population management (the world’s population was reduced by about 50 million between 1939 and 1945)
Stalin gave him lots of help.
A journalist doesn’t do interviews with people who they alway agree with. They do controversial interviews that allow different perspectives on hot issues.
What is a “questionable interview”? An interview with someone you yourself do not want to hear? maybe it is best to hear them and decide for yourself rather that just accept what you have been conditioned to accept by sources around you.
We live in a world now where we don’t let anyone finish. We jump right in there with a label to slap on a person without hearing them out or caring that sometimes things aren’t always “either...or”.
You assume that if he interviews a person like Owens that he has to pushback rather than just let her speak and allow the listener to decide what they think.
Most people want free speech and the only way that happens is to allow free speech whether you like the message or not.
If the message is obviously to slander another person with lies then the other person has a legal recourse.
Tucker doesn’t usually do interviews to be combative. He mostly invites them on and lets them speak.
Carlson said, “ You’re the most important popular historian today,” and “I’m a fan of yours.”
While an interviewer isn’t required to push back or to interrupt a guest, it is clear that Carlson is not merely giving Darryl Cooper a fair hearing but he is also endorsing him and therefore his positions.
Very sorry to correct you, but he did indeed have a beer now and then, and a bit of meat here and there. He simply didn’t like meat too much, or alcohol, for that matter. But he liked little children and was okay with dogs.
Stalin, by the way, was also friendly to children, and, if he was in a pleasant mood, he could be downright charming, just like Hitler.
Stalin also had a phenomenal eidetic memory. Even after years, he was able to not only recognize everybody by face and name, but he also clearly remembered what he had been discussing with them, often word for word.
Human beings, even monstrously, satanically evil ones, are not as duo-dimensional as comic-book or movie villains, which are more like cutout characters than like real humans.
Pegleg Pete and Lord Voldemort are memorable characters, though not particularly realistic ones.
He didn’t say he agreed with everything the guy says. I am a fan of certain authors, doesn’t mean I like every book they write.
This is what causes the new cancel culture. The kind of thinking that caused this thread.
Someone slaps a label on a person and everyone is supposed to respond by going along with it or else get branded with the same label. Sometimes you can agree with a person on a few things but not everything and you are still labeled and canceled. I can think for myself.
Trump is “a demonic force, a destroyer”
“We are very, very close to being able to ignore Trump most nights, I truly can’t wait.”
“I hate him passionately”
-From the texts of Tucker Carlson, the self serving faux populist
“Cooper is not the most popular and not at all the most honest historian. He’s a crank.”
Having listened to half of the interview I’ll second that.
Cooper isn’t offering some new historical insight, it’s storytelling that sounds more like amateur psychoanalysis of Churchill, Hitler, Stalin etc.
I’m particularly fascinated by his labelling Churchill “a psychopath” but apparently finding Hitler unremarkable.
One could accuse Cooper of being a historian, but he would never be found guilty.
“it is clear that Carlson is not merely giving Darryl Cooper a fair hearing but he is also endorsing him and therefore his positions.”
And here we have a classic example of the logical fallacy of “faulty generalization”.
It’s popular with both the “who needs logic?” set and with fans of sophistry.
Thanks for schooling me in rhetoric, but where’s the faulty generalization?
Carlson calls Cooper the best and most honest historian in the United States, then listens to him state his positions on Hitler and Churchill without objection or even mild pushback.
Is it a logical leap to find him in accord?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.