Clearly it amuses him, prick that he is.Fox's defense in a libel case is that you can't take [Tucker] Carlson seriously
In the place I saw it said most recently, at the talk page of Tucker Carlson's wiki bio, it was merely the set up for this....
I've no love for Carlson, I actually agree with John Oliver's recent takedown, but man alive, at least Oliver is no hypocrite.So really the only question we have to answer is whether to present Tucker Carlson as a far-right talking head whose show is full of white supremacist talking points, or as a white supremacist talking head.
Chapman needs to think on though, because most people aren't as dumb as he thinks they are. Thanks to a recent court case, we now all know that when the Wikimedia Foundation was asked to defend/explain/justify a global ban of an identifiable Wikipedia editor who had been accused of very bad things, they happily chose not to, instead falling back on their Californian legal protection of being able to say, because it was true, that Wikipedia is allowed to ban people from their website for "any reason", including "no reason at all".
Does it make sense that an online encyclopedia, an endeavour that is marketed as a universal human right no less, should be able to do such a thing?
Obviously not. It's the sort of thing that makes sense, only if you realise Wikipedia is nothing but a sick form of entertainment itself. A warped parody of what a self governing online encyclopedia could look like, if all participants were being their best selves, to themselves and each other. Naught but a tribute act to the very sort of person, the fascists, that Chapman so often caims to hate.
The Nazis had a bucket load of rules, laws, and cultural precedent to justify what they did. And even then, they simply often broke the law regardless, just because they could.
Remind you of anyone?
It does make you think. Did the Nazis ever get as smug as people like Chapman? Hard to picture, eh? Even knowing what we know about them now. Which says a lot, I guess.