One benefit is that it is a sport which filters out the weak. I've noticed that none of the people I know, who run consistently, are weak-minded. Nor are they weak-bodied. Strength is a requirement, and there is no 'royal road' to it. One simply has to earn it honestly.Scot Dutchy wrote: ↑Thu Jun 18, 2020 9:52 pm
When I see all joggers passing by. WTF are they hoping to achieve?
Strong ideas don't require censorship to survive. Weak ideas cannot survive without it.
An attorney for Fox News told a New York federal judge at a preliminary hearing that Tucker Carlson's audience does not expect him to report the facts — even when Carlson tells his audience that he is doing so.
And the attorney further argued that Carlson has no duty to look into whether his statements are truthful.
"What we're talking about here, it's not the front page of the New York Times," Erin Murphy, the attorney, said. "It's 'Tucker Carlson Tonight,' which is a commentary show."
The statements come amid a slander lawsuit brought against the right-leaning network by Karen McDougal, the former Playmate model who was paid $150,000 by the National Enquirer in a "catch-and-kill" sting to silence her allegations about an affair with then-candidate Donald Trump, who at the time of the alleged incident was a reality TV competition host.
McDougal claims that Carlson defamed her on a December 2018 edition of his primetime show, at which time the host accused McDougal and Stephanie Clifford (aka Stormy Daniels) of "extorting" Trump.
"Remember the facts of the story: These are undisputed," Carlson said in the segment. "Two women approached Donald Trump and threatened to ruin his career and humiliate his family if he doesn't give them money."
"Now, that sounds like a classic case of extortion," Carlson continued. "Yet, for whatever reason, Trump caves to it, and he directs Michael Cohen to pay the ransom. Now, more than two years later, Trump is a felon for doing this. It doesn't seem to make any sense."
"Oh, but you're not a federal prosecutor on a political mission," Carlson added. "If you were a federal prosecutor on a political mission, you would construe those extortion payments as campaign contributions."
The network wants the court to throw out the case on the argument that Carlson cannot defame anyone on his show, because his viewers do not expect him to state and verify facts. That would hinder McDougal's ability to prove that Carlson acted "with malice," which is the high bar of proof she must meet as a public figure.
Murphy, the Fox attorney, told the court that Carlson simply stirs the pot on his show — and a reasonable viewer would be able to discern between his "provocative things that will help me think harder" and straight news. The network airing Carlson's show also broadcasts news programming — and the word "news" is even in its name.
Strong ideas don't require censorship to survive. Weak ideas cannot survive without it.
That's exactly right. Carlson used to be a reporter, but he is a commentator now. There is absolutely no guarantee that a commentator is telling the truth. They aren't held to the same journalistic standards the reporters are, so their arguments should be treated the same as any random bloviator on the internet. I always cringe when someone links to an opinion piece to support their point.L'Emmerdeur wrote: ↑Mon Jun 22, 2020 2:30 pmYa see, the deal is, really, Mr. Carlson should not be expected to be factual in his statements. He's working on a higher level than mere facts. Facts aren't that important, what's important is making you 'think harder.' So instead of calling it trolling via disinformation, we're going to call it 'provocative things that will help me think harder.'
'Fox News lawyer tells judge that Tucker Carlson's audience doesn't expect him to report the facts'
An attorney for Fox News told a New York federal judge at a preliminary hearing that Tucker Carlson's audience does not expect him to report the facts — even when Carlson tells his audience that he is doing so.
And the attorney further argued that Carlson has no duty to look into whether his statements are truthful.
"What we're talking about here, it's not the front page of the New York Times," Erin Murphy, the attorney, said. "It's 'Tucker Carlson Tonight,' which is a commentary show."
The statements come amid a slander lawsuit brought against the right-leaning network by Karen McDougal, the former Playmate model who was paid $150,000 by the National Enquirer in a "catch-and-kill" sting to silence her allegations about an affair with then-candidate Donald Trump, who at the time of the alleged incident was a reality TV competition host.
McDougal claims that Carlson defamed her on a December 2018 edition of his primetime show, at which time the host accused McDougal and Stephanie Clifford (aka Stormy Daniels) of "extorting" Trump.
"Remember the facts of the story: These are undisputed," Carlson said in the segment. "Two women approached Donald Trump and threatened to ruin his career and humiliate his family if he doesn't give them money."
"Now, that sounds like a classic case of extortion," Carlson continued. "Yet, for whatever reason, Trump caves to it, and he directs Michael Cohen to pay the ransom. Now, more than two years later, Trump is a felon for doing this. It doesn't seem to make any sense."
"Oh, but you're not a federal prosecutor on a political mission," Carlson added. "If you were a federal prosecutor on a political mission, you would construe those extortion payments as campaign contributions."
The network wants the court to throw out the case on the argument that Carlson cannot defame anyone on his show, because his viewers do not expect him to state and verify facts. That would hinder McDougal's ability to prove that Carlson acted "with malice," which is the high bar of proof she must meet as a public figure.
Murphy, the Fox attorney, told the court that Carlson simply stirs the pot on his show — and a reasonable viewer would be able to discern between his "provocative things that will help me think harder" and straight news. The network airing Carlson's show also broadcasts news programming — and the word "news" is even in its name.
Nothing's changed.Strong ideas don't require censorship to survive. Weak ideas cannot survive without it.
Strong ideas don't require censorship to survive. Weak ideas cannot survive without it.
Identified by whom, to whom, and for what purpose?
Strong ideas don't require censorship to survive. Weak ideas cannot survive without it.
To that I'd just say 'Bollocks'. You're never keen to engage in discussion about what the alt-right actually stand for or the consequences of their social and political demands - and when challenged you usually fallback on pretending you don't know what alt-right means or who comes under, or puts themselves under, that banner, or how to tell a neo-nazi or a fascist from a run-of-the-mill conservative etc. When you're happy to talk about that maybe we can have a discussion about political violence.
The 'No True Scotsman Antifa', being in full play, can always be a fallback for you, but I'll do my best...
Strong ideas don't require censorship to survive. Weak ideas cannot survive without it.
If 'alt-right' can't be well defined, I am resistant to using it.Brian Peacock wrote: ↑Wed Jun 24, 2020 11:07 pmTo that I'd just say 'Bollocks'. You're never keen to engage in discussion about what the alt-right actually stand for or the consequences of their social and political demands - and when challenged you usually fallback on pretending you don't know what alt-right means or who comes under, or puts themselves under, that banner, or how to tell a neo-nazi or a fascist from a run-of-the-mill conservative etc. When you're happy to talk about that maybe we can have a discussion about political violence.
I'll give it a go.
Feel free to answer the earlier question if that helps.
Strong ideas don't require censorship to survive. Weak ideas cannot survive without it.
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 33 guests
