Tucker Carlson is perhaps the country’s most influential conservative commentator; his eponymous podcast is routinely among the most downloaded shows on the internet.
I’m late to the commenting game. Still, I will add my two cents. Greatest takeaway is that everyone can read books and give an opinion. However, it is the non-vetted opinions dealing with very heavy topics that can lead to horrible consequences. This is a very learned group of subscribers so I will throw this question out there. Does anyone know of any society where mass direct democracy and dissemination of ideas without vetting led to successful outcomes?
I do have to say that I’m disappointed with this episode. Darryl Cooper’s series on the Israeli Palestinian conflict is one of the most comprehensive summaries on the topic. It covers the holocaust, pogroms, and the need for a Jewish State. He talks about Jews often and he admits it. He says it’s his most studied subject. His latest podcasts openly admit that he couldn’t keep to a thesis and was way too scattered in his thoughts.
I subscribe to 2 publishers on Substack. The Free Press and Martyr Made. This was an obvious attack on a podcaster with little to no research into his body of work beyond some sound bites off of one of his interviews. You are better than this. Research before you decide to attack someone on an interview he obviously botched. There’s a lot of antisemitism in this world. Darryl Cooper isn’t part of that group.
Two of my favorite people having a conversation about history. I know VDH and Michael Moynihan are both very busy but I would love to hear them discuss history on a regular basis. As a subscriber to TFP, VDH’s Blade of Perseus and Moynihan’s The Fifth Column this would a dream come true.
This episode veered to a defense of Trump and a complaint about Woke Inc. Why not steer the conversation back to antihistory and history? TFP doesn't need to recruit another person to opine about the former two.
I long ago "muted" martr made on twitter because he clearly (to someone who is older than 25) has a anti-jewish agenda. The "delusion revolution" is taking over the right as well as the left. It is stunning to me when accessing information on the TFP how often I think "Thank goodness someone is saying it." This episode is another example. Nice job, MM.
Ok clarification thanks to Wiki. When Hansen says,”Lindbergh had two sisters in Germany that he had children by” he means that the WOMEN were sisters. 🤣
Wait a sec. Within the first 10 min of this Honestly episode- Moynihan’s intro- he briefly relates the story of a massacre and mass burial of Kiev Jews. He does this, I believe, to ‘contrast’ what he considers to be an appropriate respect or perspective re:WW2 relative to Hitler’s role as the chief villain. I’m not really sure how to summarize this, bc how do you “summarize” a WW, much less re-articulate someone else’s summary.
Anyway. This is literally the story that D.Cooper tells - in great, emotional, first-hand source detail- in his “response to the mob” episode.
I am looking forward to hearing VDH- but TFP loses credibility every time you simplify, ad-hom, faulty appeal-to-authority, and straw-man this guy.
I just listened. First, the new podcast about parenting sounds excellent and I can't wait to listen.
It's ironic how Bari and The Free press have catapulted Darryl Cooper into becoming the #1 podcast. He had only a few thousand subscribers on YouTube, which is now being suppressed. The White House and the MSM are using it as yet another opportunity to push anti-Trump propaganda.
While I never knew who Cooper was, I did find his substack because of the huge reaction from The Free Press. I listened to his response to the "mob."
He has said that he's terrible at Twitter and can't stop himself from trolling. It's clear that his position is that ever escalating warmongering leads to more horror and death. He's accusing Churchill of being a warmonger, but he's certainly not a Hitler apologist. He clearly recognizes the horrors of the Holocaust.
The attacks of Tucker are ridiculous, particularly from Bari. On Rogan, Tucker said that Bari is charming, and that he admires what she has done and accomplished. However, Bari's reaction is to disparage Tucker, write hit pieces that mischaracterise his position and treat him with disdain. This is how elites behave, they demonize people they don't like rather than have an honest conversation with that person. Is it that difficult to reach out and say I have concerns about this conversation, can we talk about it?
As Hansen said, Tucker has always been gracious and kind. Literally everyone that has spoken with Tucker says the same thing. I personally know someone that spent time with Tucker and had said how nice is. He doesn't push back on his guests to a fault. He's anti-war, particularly war where Americans will die. He's said multiple times that he loves Israel and it's people, but he doesn't want Americans to get drawn into war. This is not anti-Semitism.
Trump, for all his faults, is the most likely person to be able to descalate WWIII. The establishment wants war with Iran and Russia. Netanyahu, wants to drag America into war to defeat its enemies. Bari and The Free Press don't like the leftists and their actual anti-Semitism, but I'm afraid they are rooting for the warmongering establishment as a means to fully defeat the enemies of Israel.
I believe distrust in American society today relates to fear and uncertainty that comes from the exponential growth in information and how Institutions manage the inevitable questions that emerge.
When Institutions reject questions, shut down free speech, this is a sign that the only way they know how to deal with uncertainty and fear is control. Would anyone argue that is happening right now?
Historically, the United States led the world in innovation because we weren't afraid of questioning established beliefs. You can't discover anything without asking questions. Just as importantly, you can't execute innovation without asking good questions to solve the inevitable problems that arise during the trial and error process of execution. Without questioning the original hypotheses to figure out how to execute, it doesn't matter how exciting your theory was.
But, not all questions are the same.
Questions that are intended to discredit individuals personally are not the same as questions that are intended to get to the truth, as revealed by the story of Alan Turing. A scientist, whose questions to get the truth sparked today's information technology, but was destroyed by those whose questions intended to discredit him personally. This is just one example.
Our trust in academicians, journalists, the legal profession and government has declined more precipitously than other institutions because their purpose - to ask questions to get to the truth - has been diverted to asking questions to discredit others personally. And when they discredit scientists and leaders who have demonstrated that they ask good questions, solve problems, and execute during a crisis, they deserve to lose our trust.
I think it is fair to say that because of the power and reach of today's information technology, the intent of a question should be weighed in the algorithms that have much more impact than laws on who does and doesn't have freedom of speech.
And if I were Tucker Carlson, who seems to welcome those who question, I would think about the intent of the questions before amplifying them.
I’m late to the commenting game. Still, I will add my two cents. Greatest takeaway is that everyone can read books and give an opinion. However, it is the non-vetted opinions dealing with very heavy topics that can lead to horrible consequences. This is a very learned group of subscribers so I will throw this question out there. Does anyone know of any society where mass direct democracy and dissemination of ideas without vetting led to successful outcomes?
I do have to say that I’m disappointed with this episode. Darryl Cooper’s series on the Israeli Palestinian conflict is one of the most comprehensive summaries on the topic. It covers the holocaust, pogroms, and the need for a Jewish State. He talks about Jews often and he admits it. He says it’s his most studied subject. His latest podcasts openly admit that he couldn’t keep to a thesis and was way too scattered in his thoughts.
I subscribe to 2 publishers on Substack. The Free Press and Martyr Made. This was an obvious attack on a podcaster with little to no research into his body of work beyond some sound bites off of one of his interviews. You are better than this. Research before you decide to attack someone on an interview he obviously botched. There’s a lot of antisemitism in this world. Darryl Cooper isn’t part of that group.
Two of my favorite people having a conversation about history. I know VDH and Michael Moynihan are both very busy but I would love to hear them discuss history on a regular basis. As a subscriber to TFP, VDH’s Blade of Perseus and Moynihan’s The Fifth Column this would a dream come true.
This episode veered to a defense of Trump and a complaint about Woke Inc. Why not steer the conversation back to antihistory and history? TFP doesn't need to recruit another person to opine about the former two.
I long ago "muted" martr made on twitter because he clearly (to someone who is older than 25) has a anti-jewish agenda. The "delusion revolution" is taking over the right as well as the left. It is stunning to me when accessing information on the TFP how often I think "Thank goodness someone is saying it." This episode is another example. Nice job, MM.
Ok clarification thanks to Wiki. When Hansen says,”Lindbergh had two sisters in Germany that he had children by” he means that the WOMEN were sisters. 🤣
It’s still weird but not THAT weird
Wait a sec. Within the first 10 min of this Honestly episode- Moynihan’s intro- he briefly relates the story of a massacre and mass burial of Kiev Jews. He does this, I believe, to ‘contrast’ what he considers to be an appropriate respect or perspective re:WW2 relative to Hitler’s role as the chief villain. I’m not really sure how to summarize this, bc how do you “summarize” a WW, much less re-articulate someone else’s summary.
Anyway. This is literally the story that D.Cooper tells - in great, emotional, first-hand source detail- in his “response to the mob” episode.
I am looking forward to hearing VDH- but TFP loses credibility every time you simplify, ad-hom, faulty appeal-to-authority, and straw-man this guy.
I just listened. First, the new podcast about parenting sounds excellent and I can't wait to listen.
It's ironic how Bari and The Free press have catapulted Darryl Cooper into becoming the #1 podcast. He had only a few thousand subscribers on YouTube, which is now being suppressed. The White House and the MSM are using it as yet another opportunity to push anti-Trump propaganda.
While I never knew who Cooper was, I did find his substack because of the huge reaction from The Free Press. I listened to his response to the "mob."
He has said that he's terrible at Twitter and can't stop himself from trolling. It's clear that his position is that ever escalating warmongering leads to more horror and death. He's accusing Churchill of being a warmonger, but he's certainly not a Hitler apologist. He clearly recognizes the horrors of the Holocaust.
The attacks of Tucker are ridiculous, particularly from Bari. On Rogan, Tucker said that Bari is charming, and that he admires what she has done and accomplished. However, Bari's reaction is to disparage Tucker, write hit pieces that mischaracterise his position and treat him with disdain. This is how elites behave, they demonize people they don't like rather than have an honest conversation with that person. Is it that difficult to reach out and say I have concerns about this conversation, can we talk about it?
As Hansen said, Tucker has always been gracious and kind. Literally everyone that has spoken with Tucker says the same thing. I personally know someone that spent time with Tucker and had said how nice is. He doesn't push back on his guests to a fault. He's anti-war, particularly war where Americans will die. He's said multiple times that he loves Israel and it's people, but he doesn't want Americans to get drawn into war. This is not anti-Semitism.
Trump, for all his faults, is the most likely person to be able to descalate WWIII. The establishment wants war with Iran and Russia. Netanyahu, wants to drag America into war to defeat its enemies. Bari and The Free Press don't like the leftists and their actual anti-Semitism, but I'm afraid they are rooting for the warmongering establishment as a means to fully defeat the enemies of Israel.
I believe distrust in American society today relates to fear and uncertainty that comes from the exponential growth in information and how Institutions manage the inevitable questions that emerge.
When Institutions reject questions, shut down free speech, this is a sign that the only way they know how to deal with uncertainty and fear is control. Would anyone argue that is happening right now?
Historically, the United States led the world in innovation because we weren't afraid of questioning established beliefs. You can't discover anything without asking questions. Just as importantly, you can't execute innovation without asking good questions to solve the inevitable problems that arise during the trial and error process of execution. Without questioning the original hypotheses to figure out how to execute, it doesn't matter how exciting your theory was.
But, not all questions are the same.
Questions that are intended to discredit individuals personally are not the same as questions that are intended to get to the truth, as revealed by the story of Alan Turing. A scientist, whose questions to get the truth sparked today's information technology, but was destroyed by those whose questions intended to discredit him personally. This is just one example.
Our trust in academicians, journalists, the legal profession and government has declined more precipitously than other institutions because their purpose - to ask questions to get to the truth - has been diverted to asking questions to discredit others personally. And when they discredit scientists and leaders who have demonstrated that they ask good questions, solve problems, and execute during a crisis, they deserve to lose our trust.
I think it is fair to say that because of the power and reach of today's information technology, the intent of a question should be weighed in the algorithms that have much more impact than laws on who does and doesn't have freedom of speech.
And if I were Tucker Carlson, who seems to welcome those who question, I would think about the intent of the questions before amplifying them.