I'm sure that's one interpretation. And yet Tucker is the most watched cable news show last I checked, so clearly most Americans don't agree with your characterization of his speech.
Furthermore, drawing a causal link between Tucker and the shooter is speculative at best.
"Most watched cable news show" does not equal "most americans"; let's just clear that up before we move on...
Also, the people who watch his show agree with his speech and probably don't consider it stochastic terrorism because they also want to genocide trans people. It's not a hard concept to grasp. It's a hate-hour for a very specific slice of the population. And that slice is committing more and more acts of violence.
Do I think Tucker is DIRECTLY responsible for the shooting? Maybe not, like you said it's speculative. But do I think there is a casual link between the entire "Trans people are evil" rhetoric crowd and the shooting? Absolutely, I think it'd be difficult to argue the other direction, we have studies and statistics on trans hate crimes already.
And then do I think Tucker Carlson is part of the "Trans people are evil" rhetoric crowd? yes, hard to deny that imo. And you said it yourself, he's the largest voice out there in that crowd. So I think he definitely shoulders some blame.
Also, speculation turns out to be more and more true each time. conservative talk show hosts are cited in conservative domestic terrorists manifestos all the time. This "hour of hate" is absolutely directly contributing to violence.
Tucker disagrees with the extent of some liberal ideas. That does not make him responsible for others taking his beliefs, magnifying them, and committing atrocities.
If bluntly disagreeing with progressivism makes you blame-worthy for mass-murderers, well then we should throw all conservative media hosts in indefinite prison. Or execute them.
Uhhh, he magnifies his own beliefs without the help of others.
"The extent of some liberal ideas" is a really soft way of putting "open racist and transphobe" He literally did a segment on the "Great Replacement Theory".
He's a white supremacist. He can get absolutely, thoroughly, and without lube, fucked.
You seem like a positively delightful person. Thanks for forcing me to watch my first Tucker Carlson segment since this keeps coming up [1].
I didn't hear this "direct quote" of yours anywhere. Tucker doesn't mention the "white race" at all, he speaks about government policies and how they influence native population growth (Americans born to Americans), and about the rate of immigration. If I missed your direct quote, then please provide a timestamp. While I find many of the supposed factual claims there debatable, this argument that too much immigration can be destabilizing is not obviously false.
What I've seen time and time again in situation like this, from both sides, are claims of "dog-whistling", wink-wink-nudge-nudge "we know what you're really talking about [insert-person-I-hate]".
I'll also note that "demography is destiny" has been an unofficial Democratic party tag line for decades now. The notion that Democrats have more vested interest in increasing immigration is not exactly a conspiracy theory, although given how the Latin population is now leaning Republican I think they're realizing that that tagline is deeply flawed as an actual strategy.
> Also, the people who watch his show agree with his speech and probably don't consider it stochastic terrorism because they also want to genocide trans people.
This is what happens when you form ideas divorced from any evidence. More Democrats watch Fox News and Tucker Carlson specifically than any of the more liberal-leaning networks. Do most Democrats want to genocide trans people too? Or are you claiming they're watching Tucker ironically?
> And then do I think Tucker Carlson is part of the "Trans people are evil" rhetoric crowd? yes, hard to deny that imo.
It's easy to deny it actually, he has never called for violence against trans people to my knowledge, and in fact has always condemned violence. People are not so circumspect if they think they're legitimately fighting evil.
That's for the board to do. If they're taking their responsibility seriously and feel like the CEO is no longer capable. See also: AMC and Disney in the last 10 days.
If the CEO is taking responsibility upon himself for leading his company in such a poor way he has to fire large swaths of people then he should quit. He's the CHIEF, the buck stops with him. What, is he going to keep his job and then just be a better CEO next time? He gets to make a hundred million dollar mistake and keep his job?
I've seen peers fired for much less.
The real answer is he doesn't take responsibility for anything other than doing his job exactly as expected and prioritizing short term profits for stakeholders.
Either quit, because you're a bad CEO, or do away with this "I'm taking responsibility" facade. Just be upfront with it. "I fired you to make a quick buck." I can at least respect the honesty there.
Agreed. I feel like everyone here just can't process the concept of fiction or having fun.
It's her website. It's her art. She can do what she wants. Maybe some people should take responsibility for being "fooled" by fiction themselves instead of trying to blame some random artist for deception.
You're missing the point. Nobody here is criticizing the art itself; it looks great.
The whole point is deceiving people into believing those are real pictures when they are not. She received huge exposure in major newspapers, specialist magazines, social media, even the American embassy because of this (and sold many prints). She enjoyed that attention, even reblogged the article from the Times of London, without ever correcting anybody about the actual nature of her work.
Had she been forthright about the fact that the pictures were fake, she never would have received such attention. The picture still look cool in their own right, but we would be far from the incredible achievement that such picture would represent if they were real.
As Munier said: "I’ve got nothing against this type of creation, but it has to be presented as such".
I don't think it's her job to tell people that. This is her own little slice of the internet and she's allowed to do what she wants. She's not really hurting anyone, she's raising money for charity, the pictures are phenomenal.
People need to relax. She's 24 and getting death threats over what?
I mean worst case is she lied about photoshopping a picture? Yeah, so did Victoria Secret and EVERY SINGLE OTHER MEDIA PUBLICATION IN THE WORLD.
National Geographic did it for christ's sake...
Everyone here jumping down her fucking throat, out for blood. "Actually you lied, myehhh, this is bad and you're a bad person"
Like fuck off, I think she's well within her right to represent her art this way. Just because other publications continue to rip off artists for easy content and do very little research on their own doesn't mean she's doing anything wrong.
I think a disclaimer would remove a lot from the art. ARG's don't provide disclaimers, it adds to it. Especially in the early days of the internet "Is it, or is it not?" Is a fun game to play.
Also, nobody was hurt. This isn't disinformation in the sense you're telling people that jews run the world or that vaccines cause autism. Nobody is getting hurt. They're fun pictures. She told a cute ambiguous story. She has like 1000 followers. Everyone can just relax already.
> Billionaire "Techno-King Genius" owning a platform and tweeting transphobic and racist conspiracies to hundreds of millions of people
"These are the same thing" ~ You
You can both be ok with narrative art and be against widespread misinformation campaigns that lead to tangible deaths and hate crimes. These are not conflicting viewpoints.
Yes, because Twitter boils all down to trans people having a safe place. Only a man could put on a dress then claim to be the most marginalized member of society.
> And the performance of Twitter isn't exactly good.
Twitter is probably the most performant platform at its scale. The timeline experience is unparalleled. Reddit cant do it. Facebook cant do it. Gmail cant even let me see an email and go back to where I was in my search query half the time.
Also, Elon touts himself as "technoking" who's sole engineering prowess is responsible for Tesla and SpaceX. If someone tells him 1200 server side service calls are making the app slow in one country and not another, he deserves to be clowned on. He's the one making the claim he's some sort of Tony Stark, so he can catch flak for being dumber than the average mid-level web developer.
Oh also
> Disengaged employees are a massive drain
Why is it the employees fault for being disengaged but not Elon's for being an absolute clown and bullying/firing everyone via twitter that calls him on his bullshit. He's the one being toxic, but people responding negatively to toxicity are the "drain".
Another corporate simp acting in bad faith. Nobody cares more about twitter devs making 300k not getting lunch more than Amazon abusing warehouse workers. Nobody has said that. Nobody has implied it. The same people who are decrying workplace toxicity in elon's takeover of twitter, ime, are in favor of Amazon Unions and better workplace practices.
However, you know who isn't a fan of unions and workplace happiness? Your boy Elon. It's the same side of the same coin.
If you give a shit about Amazon and it's mistreatment of employees I have literally no idea why you're doing so much work defending Musky boi.
> Why is it the employees fault for being disengaged but not Elon's for being an absolute clown and bullying/firing everyone via twitter that calls him on his bullshit. He's the one being toxic, but people responding negatively to toxicity are the "drain".
Who says it's their fault? If you fall out of love with your SO and want a divorce, is it their fault? No. But you still need to get a divorce.
It's a business. You shouldn't take anything personally. And employees were posting shit about Musk on Twitter before he even took over.
> If someone tells him 1200 server side service calls are making the app slow in one country and not another, he deserves to be clowned on. He's the one making the claim he's some sort of Tony Stark, so he can catch flak for being dumber than the average mid-level web developer.
On the same note, the Twitter tech team needs clowned on for telling him that. As well as, the fact they have a GraphQL making 1200 calls.
> Another corporate simp acting in bad faith. Nobody cares more about twitter devs making 300k not getting lunch more than Amazon abusing warehouse workers. Nobody has said that. Nobody has implied it. The same people who are decrying workplace toxicity in elon's takeover of twitter, ime, are in favor of Amazon Unions and better workplace practices.
The same people decrying Twitter and moving to Mastadon and other platforms are the same ones still buying from Amazon.
Amazon go union busting and people did nothing really. Musk fires people for publically disparaging the company and I hear about it non stop for days and days.
> If you give a shit about Amazon and it's mistreatment of employees I have literally no idea why you're doing so much work defending Musky boi.
There is a big difference between almost slave labour and firing people who make a lot of money.
The so-called defence of Musk here is merely pointing out the facts.
Facts:
* Making sweeping changes and have a month or so of chaos is better than months of chaos.
you don't know employees were disengaged. You only know that they don't like elon musk. Twitter's culture was one of staunch criticism to make sure good products were being built in lieu of ego-driven development. This points to very ENGAGED employees.
Twitter runs impressively quick (or it used to at least) for what it does. Judging a system by something like "Woah 1200 calls, that's a big number" without contextualizing it just telegraphs your naivety.The "tech team" that told him that are literally the group of Tesla Engineers he brought in on week 1. So idk why the twitter team needs to be clowned on. He's been installing his own people the entire time.
Also, his sweeping changes are still causing chaos because they have a whole system in place now to re-hire people that were accidentally fired because Musk is firing people so much. It's been more than a month and people are still having to randomly fly to the office and do unscheduled group code reviews with like 4 hours of notice.
"People did nothing really" shows how disengaged you are from Amazon's criticism and the action people are taking against it. Christian Smalls is still out there working to Unionize Amazon, people are still supporting him and people like him. It's a long boring fight and just because it isn't flashy doesn't mean nothing is happening.
"People have a penchant for talking about recent news, I'm shocked"
They're not mutually exclusive topics. Billionaires exercising unilateral control over people's lives is generally a bad thing, whether that's musk or bezos.
1. 1000 RPCs is nothing surprising in any large solution. There are layers and layers of specialized services that are called parallelly and asynchronously. Can a "local" service handle everything by itself? Check internal datacenter letencies. Most of the calls are culled by caches anyway. Also those calls are made with Thrift/Protocol buffers/gRPC. Such design allows scaling, resiliency and prevents breaking other services by circuit breaking. I could go on and on.
2. How do you know that Twitter employees were disengaged?
> 2. How do you know that Twitter employees were disengaged?
Some are posting "kiss my ass Elon" on Twitter. Other's tweets mocking the code review and "hardcore" engineer stuff. I'm sure you're going to say "But that doesn't mean all of them" but Musk hasn't fired all of them.
Hate speech spewed by the likes of Tucker Carlson caused a mass shooting like a week ago...