https://www.bing.com/amp/s/www.mediaite.com/news/tucker-carlson-talks-fox-his-ex-writer-blake-neff-and-how-republicans-hate-trumps-ideas-in-premiere-episode-of-the-interview/amp/

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4614718&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310486#40841082)

Odd case!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4614718&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310486#40841287)

And I’m sure there’s a cohort of people who’d argue it’s Charles’ fault that he’s “canceled” but I think doxxing Charles was a lowkey and pathetic move that shouldn’t have happened in the first place.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4614718&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310486#40843246)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_nFI2Zb7qE

tucker says more racist shit during an average broadcast than charles has on xo historically. birds of a feather

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4614718&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310486#40843266)

In my mind, they are both pretty much the same thing: a non-public figure posts things on publicly available forum and another person reprints them somewhere else for the purpose of embarrassing or making fun of the original poster. It seems hypocritical to me for CNN to run an article condemning someone for doing the same thing the article is doing.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4614718&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310486#40847163)

Doesn't Tucker rail against this pretty much every day? No guilt by association, no giving in to a lib cancel culture mob, etc.?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4614718&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310486#40843986)

HTTP ERROR 404

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4614718&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310486#40841328)

Try this

https://www.mediaite.com/news/tucker-carlson-talks-fox-his-ex-writer-blake-neff-and-how-republicans-hate-trumps-ideas-in-premiere-episode-of-the-interview/

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4614718&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310486#40841341)

LOL are you Chinese or something?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4614718&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310486#40841466)

And every word on the show that comes out of my mouth is my view, and my views are totally — you may hate them, doubtless you do — but they’re transparent. Like I don’t hide what I think. I don’t lie about what I think, I try not to lie at all, I probably do sometimes, I try not to.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4614718&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310486#40843914)

But if he was going to defend the disconnect between Charles and the content of his show the way he chose to do in this interview, he should have been more explicit in pointing out that it's logically incoherent to claim that his show is Immoral And Bad because it had a writer on it that was an Evil Racist. Disregarding whether or not Charles ever did or wrote anything Evil And Racist, that just doesn't have anything to do with the actual content of Tucker's show, whether Charles wrote it or someone else wrote it

Tucker tried to point this out in this interview but just kind of stumbled around mostly incoherently and never really made the point in an explicit and convincing way

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4614718&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310486#40841622)

But it’s wholly unrelated to the show. I’m responsible for the show. If you don’t like the show, don’t blame Blake Neff, it’s not his fault, it’s my fault. It’s one hundred percent my fault what’s on the show. So, you know, if you’ve got a problem with it, blame me. Don’t blame some kid in his twenties who’s now unemployed.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4614718&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310486#40843913)

Tucker might be one of the most loyal men in media history.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4614718&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310486#40842594)

1 - "i read through what Charles was claimed to have said and he didn't post that stuff, he just responded in other people's threads. his comments were tame and no darker or more controversial than what comedians say all the time"

2 - "i believe in freedom of speech and his private views, which don't impact the show, are of no concern of mine. he's been a fabulous writer and professional at all times. i'm not firing him or accepting his resignation. and oliver darcy and whoever tried doxxing him to get him fired should be ashamed of himself."

no, what he did was the opposite of defending him:

1 - "charles is a piece of shit for writing controversial opinions online under a pseudonym in his free time. BUT (hehe) he's a young guy so he can still grow from this (hehe!). but meanwhile his ass is fucking terminated (he can avoid a tiny bit of humiliation by saying he resigned)."

god forbid you ever have to "defend" anybody

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4614718&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310486#40842883)

Tucker will not back him fully bc he wants all the credit for his success. You see it multiple times in the interview - this is MY show.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4614718&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310486#40843903)

This is why we don't let womyn vote

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4614718&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310486#40843974)

2. Isn't cucker all about dat free speech? You can't make racist jokes now?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4614718&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310486#40843999)

2. Yes, and opposing cancel culture and pearl clutching. Then it hit his IRL and he immediately caved because while he is obscenely wealthy, he could be even richer. The fact that he calls on his viewers to make whatever sacrifices for Amuricahhh immediately fell away.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4614718&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310486#40844018)

"I didn’t agree with what Blake wrote, I told him that, he left the show as a result of it, he lost his job, and what he wrote had no effect at any level on the show. It had nothing to do with the show. It was wholly distinct from the show."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4614718&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310486#40845130)

Cucker even doubles down on this when he says billionaires are not good elsewhere in the interview.

This is orthogonal to his public persona's advocacy.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4614718&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310486#40845190)