Bryan why shouldn't you talk to whomever will have an open, interesting conversation with you? It is your choice. What happened to the belief in freedom of choice? What happened to tolerance of different opinions? There is absolutely nothing educational with talking to a group of people that all nod their heads together in agreement. People should be applauding you for the diverse amount of people that you have interviews with to understand your ideas. Who cares what others think...
Of course you should have talked to Tucker! There is a difference between a journalist who wants to ambush you, embarrass you, and "expose" (in his mind) your "stupid" position - versus one who, like Tucker, holds a controversial point of view but genuinely wants to understand a different perspective. It is possible to be both opinionated and objective; most of the time, Tucker passes muster on both counts. You said yourself his interview was genuinely fair, and that you enjoyed the interaction. What other evidence do you need? So, talk to Tucker, talk to Bari Weiss, talk to Glenn Greenwald, talk to the so-called "anti-vaxxers" who come from a scientific point of view, talk to commenters who regard intervention in Ukraine as against American interests. Talk to anyone who comes from a place of honesty and curiosity. Hell, you might learn something.
"It is possible to be both opinionated and objective; most of the time, Tucker passes muster on both counts."
This is nonsense. Plus he isn't an "so-called anti-vaxxer who comes from a scientific point of view." He isn't someone like Vinay Prasad who has raised concerns on having the vaccines adminstered to young people especially boys. Tucker wholesale denies the safety and efficacy of vaccines. He is anti-vax.
I'm not aware that Tucker is against all vaccines, but suppose that is true. Yes, he is opinionated. Do you think his opinions prevent him from being an objective interviewer? Bryan apparently didn't think so. I believe that was the point of the discussion question: "Should I have interviewed with Tucker?"
Objectivity is the focused mind, eg, Western civ, science, the rational individualist, Enlightenment culture of America's founding. Conservatism is the unfocused mind waiting for a revelation from tradition. But most conservatives are anti-ideological Pragmatists, flitting mindlessly from idea to idea like a butterfly, indifferent to contradictions. So, randomly, not consistently, Carlson is objective. You would not use a doctor, lawyer, or car mechanic with that intellectual habit. Carlsons reports on the woke destruction of the remains of America's unique founding are superfically good. But he doesnt recognize the shared, unfocused minds of conservatives and "Progressives."
Right. All vaccines have some problems for some people. There is no vaccine Garden Of Eden. Risks must be calculated for individuals and groups and accepted. In the long run, many vaccines have greatly benefited people. Conservatives want folk medicine, like tree bark for headaches, that can be understood with common sense, without the intellectual effort of med school.
Nov30'22, Toxic Ideas Behind the Quest for "Zero Covid," Amesh Adalja, epidemiologist; Ayn Rand Institute, YouTube
Solid defense, Bryan (though I don't understand why a defense is needed.) The piece is worth reading just for this line: "Objectively speaking, Tucker’s views are no worse than my dad’s, and I talk to him all the time." I cannot limit my circle of friends (or family) by what I consider to be their "damned-odd" (to me) beliefs in politics. Thankfully, we have the humanity to connect on other margins.
For anyone who remains upset please consider reading Arnold Kling's "The Three Languages of politics: Talking Across the Political Divide." It helped a lot of my students see the futility and limits to tromping down the tribal path.
1. It doesn't move the football forward to talk only to audiences that already agree with you. If you want to change minds, you have to go to the people who aren't on your side already.
2. Only a moron thinks that being interviewed by somebody implies endorsement of everything they stand for.
You can talk to whomever you want or course, with any reasoning about why you think it advances some worthy goal. But your explanations are almost entirely devoid of any consideration for the sort of politics Tucker partakes in, which makes talking about journalists being good or bad almost nonsensical.
Tucker trades in smearing people and ginning up outrage and hatred for whatever group of people seems convenient at the moment, with little ever intellectual accountability let alone regret (famously, he's against the very concept of apology or admitting error). He uses the appearances of his guests to help legitimize this project. It's an ugly business, and you're welcome to be glib about it, but I don't think the comparison to "most journalists" holds water as an excuse. Yes, it IS really fun and funny to tear people down and avoid any logic or empathy. It feels wonderful to feel righteous and carefully protect yourself from serious criticism. But it's not really a worthy part of the project o advancing ideas.
"Tucker trades in smearing people and ginning up outrage and hatred for whatever group of people seems convenient at the moment, with little ever intellectual accountability let alone regret (famously, he's against the very concept of apology or admitting error)."
Though I stopped watching TV/video news a decade ago, I suspect this is more true now for famous talk show/pundit types on major networks. Who can you hold up as a counter example?
As a European and a classical liberal what I find particularly annoying about Carlson are his forays into our politics and the ignorant blather they invariably produce. His admiration for European quasi-fascists (and I don’t use that word as a generic insult but in its precise meaning) really grates. That being said, it is unfortunately a trait common to a lot of US conservatives, who seem to lack the necessary detection systems. Does that mean you shouldn’t talk to him? Nah. But I really wonder what you gain by talking to an audience that is already anti-feminist (not necessarily for the right reasons...) especially when you could be making the same points to a liberal (in the US sense of the word) audience that needs convincing and now has the perfect excuse to ignore you.
I don't think this happens only from one 'side'. Essentially whenever I have seen any US pundit say anything about UK (where I am) or European politics, there take is excruciatingly bad. I think most have enough to keep up with on US politics to have any deep knowledge of much outside.
This also makes me suspect that almost everything I read from European pundits about US politics is equally bad.
It is disappointing as Tucker Carlson is an agenda-driven journalist, and like all journalists in that group you have to play into their narrative. I have no doubt that your appearance on his program was to state a point that you felt needed to be articulated by yourself in person, but the reliable media measure is that you had a point of view that Mr. Carlson wanted to amplify for his audience. If that doesn't trouble you, then it is a win-win for you both.
This proves too much, though, as per Bryan's original point "agenda-driven journalist" applies to effectively almost all major journalists with a similar platform, unless you're distinguishing them based more on how much you agree with their agenda already, as opposed to the existence of the agenda.
> It is disappointing as Tucker Carlson is an agenda-driven journalist, and like all journalists in that group you have to play into their narrative.
Did using "religion" as a negative thing play into Carlson's narratives? At least not completely, I assume. And other things, like anti-doomerism.
I watched the entire interview, and Carlson wasn't terrible at all. He might be "agenda-driven" in general, but it's not particularly present in this interview specifically.
As a besieged intellectual showing up to the citadel of Tucker, Rachael, Hannity, or Lemon/Cooper, it must feel a bit like getting really drunk, hammered, and later blissfully praised. He’ll feel this one for the next several days.
I don't watch any TV news, so I haven't seen much Tucker.
But I remember that when they were burning down cities for BLM, he was one of the only ones covering it. Ditto for COVID NPIs.
On a personal level, he gave a lot of airtime to the situation in my school district in which the School Board was incredibly abusive, did a lot of illegal things, and even tried to use the FBI to shut parents up.
That effort got resignations, policy changes, and a new governor. In fact the election of Youngkin was a deathknell for COVID NPIs and an important starting point for what I hope is a revolution in education (universal school vouchers passed in Arizona, Iowa, and WV, should get votes this year in FL and TX).
So Tucker has done a lot of good for the world. Certainly more than his critics.
And of course I agree with him on immigration so I don't even have a downside.
I think the argument is that if your goal is to expand the reach of your ideas and get people to take them seriously, going on Tucker is counterproductive as half of the country will now automatically consider you a right-wing crank and automatically dismiss anything you have to say without even really thinking about it. Fairly or not, the concepts of this book will now be inextricably linked with the far right.
I think you're overthinking this. Going on Tucker Carlson isn't some massive landmark in Bryan's career, and when people encounter his ideas years from now very few on the left are going to know that he was on the show. The group that will remember the interview best, years from now, are the people who watched it.
This would be my concern, too. The people who are most in need if discovering Bryan's book will now be somewhat more likely to ignore it, while the people who watch Carlson's show largely share Bryan's position already (albeit it not anywhere near as thought-out as Bryan). I'd have to think through the probabilities and group sizes to argue this definitively, but it is the issue I'd consider.
1. Vaccines saved hundreds of millions of lives and made the pandemic less deadly.
2. With Great Power comes Great Responsibility.
3. Therefore it stands to reason, anti-vaccine messaging is one of the most immoral things you can do. After all you just recently argued in the Hanania reply piece that silence is much better than spreading lies.
4. Tucker Carlson is the biggest anti-vaccine loudspeaker on mainstream cable news hence is spreading some of the most harmful lies that definitely influenced them to make a decision that cost many people their lives.
So I think it would be okay to go to his show and argue for vaccines because I agree with Dale Carengie about changing people's minds and not shunning them.
But the appearance was about Feminism instead. You seem unaware of point 4 or for some reason haven't brought up in this post.
1) Tucker Carlson has not prevented anyone from getting a vaccine.
2) At worst, some small subset of Tucker Carlson listeners were persuaded not to get a vaccine by Tucker. This would have a very marginal impact on the death rate.
3) Tucker Carlson was a strong voice for ending COVID NPIs. COVID NPIs caused dramatically more death and suffering than COVID. Bryan recently published a paper on this.
4) To the extent Tucker moved the needle on COVID policy, he saved and improved dramatically more lives then could have been harmed by #1.
5) Tucker Carlson has done a great moral good on COVID and you should thank him.
You perhaps have not been paying attention to the VAERS data, the mounting evidence that the vaccines make one much more likely to contract COVID well beyond the lower levels of death from any individual case, making one more likely to die from COVID if vaccinated... there is a lot of reason to think that the vaccines made things worse, not better. There is also very little reason to believe that additional "hundreds of millions of lives" would have been lost, given the actual fatality rates due to COVID.
I could write to VAERS that I got the jab then the vaccine materialised into a big burly man that punched me and then broke my jaw and escaped to the Maldives and it would be counted by VAERS as an adverse side effect of the vaccine. VAERS is self reported and is regularly abused by people who either have agendas or by those who have no clue what they're talking about and are off with the fairies.
Alternately, you could go to the hospital and die, and the doctor will write down "COVID death." Never mind you know, the car accident.
All the records have lots of problems, and while VAERS isn't perfect, it ought to be considered along side all the other imperfect information out there. Ignoring everything but what one side says is likely to be misleading.
Oh, and don't forget, many other countries have actual data on this kind of stuff, so you know, there's that.
Point 1 is probably true. But it is also true that that the vaccine response, and worse, the overall COVID response, had costs. Those costs need to be weighed against the benefits from Point 1.
Without such a cost-benefit tradeoff calculation, Point 3 may well be false.
Point 1 is definitely false. The experimental MRNA injections have been a windfall for the companies that produced them, and a great burden for the rest of the population.
So what if it was about feminism instead? It gave people a more nuanced and intellectually sophisticated anti-feminist perspective to listen to. Maybe it gives people better talking points.
I don't fault you for going the show, but I won't be watching. Much better things to do with my time then giving Tuckers crass form of journalism any attention.
I’m here too. I think it’s good for the few of Tucker’s viewers who end up digging deeper and learning more about Caplan’s body of work. Potentially learning about other issues and becoming overall a better more critical thinker.
For the majority of other viewers on both sides of the aisle, they’re gonna take the sound bite and run with it anyway. Heck, the title of his feminism book reads like a click-bait sound bite to begin with (which IMHO that’s the issue people should have problem with). Don’t see much harm for this instance of reinforcing priors.
The ADL's hysterical rant about so-called "Replacement Theory" that you linked to is absurd, given the rapid changes in this country's demographics. In my lifetime, the US has gone from 90% white to around 65% white. These changes are obvious to everyone and denied by no one. Funny how the ADL isn't offended when Democrats gloat about the same demographic changes.
Amazing post, really concretizes a point I've been trying to make: Most of the ruling class are only slightly better than normies when they're less wrong, and far worse than normies when they're more wrong.
I have no problem whatsoever with you going on Tucker Carlson's program. Yes, some disagree with Tucker's ideas, SO FREAKING WHAT?? I am getting sick and tired of supposedly "educated" people (some with "PhD"s) behaving like silly infantile snowflakes who cannot take a criticism or two, who cannot bear people who think differently and say so aloud
If I were you, Caplan, I would go on Tucker's program again, just to spite your critics.
And as for your critics: why don't you just shut up and behave like adults, for a change.
I'm glad you went on Tucker Carlson! I don't watch him. I don't want to. I don't care for his views or his style. I do, greatly respect that he has people on his show with whom HE disagrees. I also know for sure that I have come to agree with you on many views that I originally disagreed with you on. Not because you convinced me, but because you made a compelling and *friendly* case for Open Boarders, and Against Education, etc. Starting from an interview with you, I did more reading and more thinking. I changed my mind. I assume (without evidence) that most of Carlson's viewers are watching him because he confirms their biases, I also know how important it is to be exposed as often as possible to things I disagree with.
It's sad that there are people who think Tucker's views are beyond the pale. I don't follow him, but he always struck me as pretty much center-right. Would you actually shun someone because they think we should have borders or that crack shouldn't be legalized? You'd have few people to talk to in that case.
Bryan why shouldn't you talk to whomever will have an open, interesting conversation with you? It is your choice. What happened to the belief in freedom of choice? What happened to tolerance of different opinions? There is absolutely nothing educational with talking to a group of people that all nod their heads together in agreement. People should be applauding you for the diverse amount of people that you have interviews with to understand your ideas. Who cares what others think...
Of course you should have talked to Tucker! There is a difference between a journalist who wants to ambush you, embarrass you, and "expose" (in his mind) your "stupid" position - versus one who, like Tucker, holds a controversial point of view but genuinely wants to understand a different perspective. It is possible to be both opinionated and objective; most of the time, Tucker passes muster on both counts. You said yourself his interview was genuinely fair, and that you enjoyed the interaction. What other evidence do you need? So, talk to Tucker, talk to Bari Weiss, talk to Glenn Greenwald, talk to the so-called "anti-vaxxers" who come from a scientific point of view, talk to commenters who regard intervention in Ukraine as against American interests. Talk to anyone who comes from a place of honesty and curiosity. Hell, you might learn something.
"It is possible to be both opinionated and objective; most of the time, Tucker passes muster on both counts."
This is nonsense. Plus he isn't an "so-called anti-vaxxer who comes from a scientific point of view." He isn't someone like Vinay Prasad who has raised concerns on having the vaccines adminstered to young people especially boys. Tucker wholesale denies the safety and efficacy of vaccines. He is anti-vax.
Strangely, Tucker never did a single thing to prevent me from getting a vaccine.
He was however a voice of reason during the entire COVID NPI / BLM era.
I would take Tucker making COVID policy over Fauci making COVID policy any day of the week.
I'm not aware that Tucker is against all vaccines, but suppose that is true. Yes, he is opinionated. Do you think his opinions prevent him from being an objective interviewer? Bryan apparently didn't think so. I believe that was the point of the discussion question: "Should I have interviewed with Tucker?"
Objectivity is the focused mind, eg, Western civ, science, the rational individualist, Enlightenment culture of America's founding. Conservatism is the unfocused mind waiting for a revelation from tradition. But most conservatives are anti-ideological Pragmatists, flitting mindlessly from idea to idea like a butterfly, indifferent to contradictions. So, randomly, not consistently, Carlson is objective. You would not use a doctor, lawyer, or car mechanic with that intellectual habit. Carlsons reports on the woke destruction of the remains of America's unique founding are superfically good. But he doesnt recognize the shared, unfocused minds of conservatives and "Progressives."
Right. All vaccines have some problems for some people. There is no vaccine Garden Of Eden. Risks must be calculated for individuals and groups and accepted. In the long run, many vaccines have greatly benefited people. Conservatives want folk medicine, like tree bark for headaches, that can be understood with common sense, without the intellectual effort of med school.
Nov30'22, Toxic Ideas Behind the Quest for "Zero Covid," Amesh Adalja, epidemiologist; Ayn Rand Institute, YouTube
Solid defense, Bryan (though I don't understand why a defense is needed.) The piece is worth reading just for this line: "Objectively speaking, Tucker’s views are no worse than my dad’s, and I talk to him all the time." I cannot limit my circle of friends (or family) by what I consider to be their "damned-odd" (to me) beliefs in politics. Thankfully, we have the humanity to connect on other margins.
For anyone who remains upset please consider reading Arnold Kling's "The Three Languages of politics: Talking Across the Political Divide." It helped a lot of my students see the futility and limits to tromping down the tribal path.
You did nothing wrong.
1. It doesn't move the football forward to talk only to audiences that already agree with you. If you want to change minds, you have to go to the people who aren't on your side already.
2. Only a moron thinks that being interviewed by somebody implies endorsement of everything they stand for.
You can talk to whomever you want or course, with any reasoning about why you think it advances some worthy goal. But your explanations are almost entirely devoid of any consideration for the sort of politics Tucker partakes in, which makes talking about journalists being good or bad almost nonsensical.
Tucker trades in smearing people and ginning up outrage and hatred for whatever group of people seems convenient at the moment, with little ever intellectual accountability let alone regret (famously, he's against the very concept of apology or admitting error). He uses the appearances of his guests to help legitimize this project. It's an ugly business, and you're welcome to be glib about it, but I don't think the comparison to "most journalists" holds water as an excuse. Yes, it IS really fun and funny to tear people down and avoid any logic or empathy. It feels wonderful to feel righteous and carefully protect yourself from serious criticism. But it's not really a worthy part of the project o advancing ideas.
"Tucker trades in smearing people and ginning up outrage and hatred for whatever group of people seems convenient at the moment, with little ever intellectual accountability let alone regret (famously, he's against the very concept of apology or admitting error)."
Though I stopped watching TV/video news a decade ago, I suspect this is more true now for famous talk show/pundit types on major networks. Who can you hold up as a counter example?
As a European and a classical liberal what I find particularly annoying about Carlson are his forays into our politics and the ignorant blather they invariably produce. His admiration for European quasi-fascists (and I don’t use that word as a generic insult but in its precise meaning) really grates. That being said, it is unfortunately a trait common to a lot of US conservatives, who seem to lack the necessary detection systems. Does that mean you shouldn’t talk to him? Nah. But I really wonder what you gain by talking to an audience that is already anti-feminist (not necessarily for the right reasons...) especially when you could be making the same points to a liberal (in the US sense of the word) audience that needs convincing and now has the perfect excuse to ignore you.
I don't think this happens only from one 'side'. Essentially whenever I have seen any US pundit say anything about UK (where I am) or European politics, there take is excruciatingly bad. I think most have enough to keep up with on US politics to have any deep knowledge of much outside.
This also makes me suspect that almost everything I read from European pundits about US politics is equally bad.
It is disappointing as Tucker Carlson is an agenda-driven journalist, and like all journalists in that group you have to play into their narrative. I have no doubt that your appearance on his program was to state a point that you felt needed to be articulated by yourself in person, but the reliable media measure is that you had a point of view that Mr. Carlson wanted to amplify for his audience. If that doesn't trouble you, then it is a win-win for you both.
This proves too much, though, as per Bryan's original point "agenda-driven journalist" applies to effectively almost all major journalists with a similar platform, unless you're distinguishing them based more on how much you agree with their agenda already, as opposed to the existence of the agenda.
> It is disappointing as Tucker Carlson is an agenda-driven journalist, and like all journalists in that group you have to play into their narrative.
Did using "religion" as a negative thing play into Carlson's narratives? At least not completely, I assume. And other things, like anti-doomerism.
I watched the entire interview, and Carlson wasn't terrible at all. He might be "agenda-driven" in general, but it's not particularly present in this interview specifically.
As a besieged intellectual showing up to the citadel of Tucker, Rachael, Hannity, or Lemon/Cooper, it must feel a bit like getting really drunk, hammered, and later blissfully praised. He’ll feel this one for the next several days.
I don't watch any TV news, so I haven't seen much Tucker.
But I remember that when they were burning down cities for BLM, he was one of the only ones covering it. Ditto for COVID NPIs.
On a personal level, he gave a lot of airtime to the situation in my school district in which the School Board was incredibly abusive, did a lot of illegal things, and even tried to use the FBI to shut parents up.
That effort got resignations, policy changes, and a new governor. In fact the election of Youngkin was a deathknell for COVID NPIs and an important starting point for what I hope is a revolution in education (universal school vouchers passed in Arizona, Iowa, and WV, should get votes this year in FL and TX).
So Tucker has done a lot of good for the world. Certainly more than his critics.
And of course I agree with him on immigration so I don't even have a downside.
I think the argument is that if your goal is to expand the reach of your ideas and get people to take them seriously, going on Tucker is counterproductive as half of the country will now automatically consider you a right-wing crank and automatically dismiss anything you have to say without even really thinking about it. Fairly or not, the concepts of this book will now be inextricably linked with the far right.
I think you're overthinking this. Going on Tucker Carlson isn't some massive landmark in Bryan's career, and when people encounter his ideas years from now very few on the left are going to know that he was on the show. The group that will remember the interview best, years from now, are the people who watched it.
This would be my concern, too. The people who are most in need if discovering Bryan's book will now be somewhat more likely to ignore it, while the people who watch Carlson's show largely share Bryan's position already (albeit it not anywhere near as thought-out as Bryan). I'd have to think through the probabilities and group sizes to argue this definitively, but it is the issue I'd consider.
1. Vaccines saved hundreds of millions of lives and made the pandemic less deadly.
2. With Great Power comes Great Responsibility.
3. Therefore it stands to reason, anti-vaccine messaging is one of the most immoral things you can do. After all you just recently argued in the Hanania reply piece that silence is much better than spreading lies.
4. Tucker Carlson is the biggest anti-vaccine loudspeaker on mainstream cable news hence is spreading some of the most harmful lies that definitely influenced them to make a decision that cost many people their lives.
So I think it would be okay to go to his show and argue for vaccines because I agree with Dale Carengie about changing people's minds and not shunning them.
But the appearance was about Feminism instead. You seem unaware of point 4 or for some reason haven't brought up in this post.
How are points 1, 2 and 3 compatible with 4?
1) Tucker Carlson has not prevented anyone from getting a vaccine.
2) At worst, some small subset of Tucker Carlson listeners were persuaded not to get a vaccine by Tucker. This would have a very marginal impact on the death rate.
3) Tucker Carlson was a strong voice for ending COVID NPIs. COVID NPIs caused dramatically more death and suffering than COVID. Bryan recently published a paper on this.
4) To the extent Tucker moved the needle on COVID policy, he saved and improved dramatically more lives then could have been harmed by #1.
5) Tucker Carlson has done a great moral good on COVID and you should thank him.
Point 1 if false, and therefore Point 3 and 4 fall apart would be my take.
What do you mean by "Point 1 if false" as if we don't know the answer to the question.
You perhaps have not been paying attention to the VAERS data, the mounting evidence that the vaccines make one much more likely to contract COVID well beyond the lower levels of death from any individual case, making one more likely to die from COVID if vaccinated... there is a lot of reason to think that the vaccines made things worse, not better. There is also very little reason to believe that additional "hundreds of millions of lives" would have been lost, given the actual fatality rates due to COVID.
I could write to VAERS that I got the jab then the vaccine materialised into a big burly man that punched me and then broke my jaw and escaped to the Maldives and it would be counted by VAERS as an adverse side effect of the vaccine. VAERS is self reported and is regularly abused by people who either have agendas or by those who have no clue what they're talking about and are off with the fairies.
Alternately, you could go to the hospital and die, and the doctor will write down "COVID death." Never mind you know, the car accident.
All the records have lots of problems, and while VAERS isn't perfect, it ought to be considered along side all the other imperfect information out there. Ignoring everything but what one side says is likely to be misleading.
Oh, and don't forget, many other countries have actual data on this kind of stuff, so you know, there's that.
Point 1 is probably true. But it is also true that that the vaccine response, and worse, the overall COVID response, had costs. Those costs need to be weighed against the benefits from Point 1.
Without such a cost-benefit tradeoff calculation, Point 3 may well be false.
Point 1 is definitely false. The experimental MRNA injections have been a windfall for the companies that produced them, and a great burden for the rest of the population.
Lot of anti-vaxxers on Bryan Caplan's subreddit of all places. I didn't expect that.
So what if it was about feminism instead? It gave people a more nuanced and intellectually sophisticated anti-feminist perspective to listen to. Maybe it gives people better talking points.
I don't fault you for going the show, but I won't be watching. Much better things to do with my time then giving Tuckers crass form of journalism any attention.
I’m here too. I think it’s good for the few of Tucker’s viewers who end up digging deeper and learning more about Caplan’s body of work. Potentially learning about other issues and becoming overall a better more critical thinker.
For the majority of other viewers on both sides of the aisle, they’re gonna take the sound bite and run with it anyway. Heck, the title of his feminism book reads like a click-bait sound bite to begin with (which IMHO that’s the issue people should have problem with). Don’t see much harm for this instance of reinforcing priors.
Is there a line to be drawn based on Tucker's promotion/dog whistle of replacement theory, see e.g., https://www.adl.org/resources/blog/deplatform-tucker-carlson-and-great-replacement-theory, or his deleting Kanye's comments about Jews from his interview of Kanye to showcase his views?
The ADL's hysterical rant about so-called "Replacement Theory" that you linked to is absurd, given the rapid changes in this country's demographics. In my lifetime, the US has gone from 90% white to around 65% white. These changes are obvious to everyone and denied by no one. Funny how the ADL isn't offended when Democrats gloat about the same demographic changes.
The ADL is a partisan slander mill.
Amazing post, really concretizes a point I've been trying to make: Most of the ruling class are only slightly better than normies when they're less wrong, and far worse than normies when they're more wrong.
I have no problem whatsoever with you going on Tucker Carlson's program. Yes, some disagree with Tucker's ideas, SO FREAKING WHAT?? I am getting sick and tired of supposedly "educated" people (some with "PhD"s) behaving like silly infantile snowflakes who cannot take a criticism or two, who cannot bear people who think differently and say so aloud
If I were you, Caplan, I would go on Tucker's program again, just to spite your critics.
And as for your critics: why don't you just shut up and behave like adults, for a change.
I'm glad you went on Tucker Carlson! I don't watch him. I don't want to. I don't care for his views or his style. I do, greatly respect that he has people on his show with whom HE disagrees. I also know for sure that I have come to agree with you on many views that I originally disagreed with you on. Not because you convinced me, but because you made a compelling and *friendly* case for Open Boarders, and Against Education, etc. Starting from an interview with you, I did more reading and more thinking. I changed my mind. I assume (without evidence) that most of Carlson's viewers are watching him because he confirms their biases, I also know how important it is to be exposed as often as possible to things I disagree with.
It's sad that there are people who think Tucker's views are beyond the pale. I don't follow him, but he always struck me as pretty much center-right. Would you actually shun someone because they think we should have borders or that crack shouldn't be legalized? You'd have few people to talk to in that case.