I didn’t realize that part of their mission statement was to smear people. They claim their purpose is to expose conservative misinformation in the media, per the quote I provided. I’m OK with that, but at least they should admit it.
Dude, this happened when he was in High School.
No. You are the one who is hopelessly partisan. Don’t project that on someone else. I couldn’t care less about “the right”. I just like honesty.
Depends on if you mean proper ethically or morally.
Morally, I see nothing wrong with an eye for an eye, or a life for an eye, while we’re at it. Ethically, looking at it from the outside, there’s nothing to prevent horrible abuses that cannot be proven and so the actual criminal justice system is better.
Now, if it were a stranger in there as opposed to a person he knew (I didnt read the link so I dont know,) it’s a tough call but I’d have to say restraining the person should be within legal and moral rights, because they might not still be there when the police arrive.
Assuming of course that this was some sort of (attempted) rape, and the response was restricted to holding him down, and the question was about practicality rather than morals. Cause morally, most people who rape don’t deserve to live.
John:
Media Matters is entirely explicit as regards their mission and their orientation. You cannot pretend to be surprised or misled. As to the “lead story” status, so what? It may simply be a slow news day for right-wing lies, even Homer nods. Further, unless I’m mistaken, the “lead story” at any given moment is that most recent.
Your forthright defense of honesty is duly noted.
You inadvertently pose a fascinating moral question. What distinguishes the deserving rapist from the undeserving?
For the record, I’m female. And to tell the truth, I’m way way tired of the way many guys turn into hysterical ninnies at the mere IDEA that another may make a pass at them, let alone having it actually happen to them.
Assuming we are only talking about words and possibly gestures, what is the big deal? Women deal with passes from men all the time, many of which are unwelcome. We handle it. Need a lesson in how to do it? Okay, repeat after me, “No, thank you.” “No, I’m not into that.” “Forget it.” “No, not my thing.” “Not interested.” “No.” “My type has boobs.”
Was that so hard?
Maybe because police are not required to protect individuals but only society at large. If a man mugs you, and you have a choice between grabbing a buddy to subdue him right away or waiting two hours for the police to come, then if you choose the latter, the HA HA HA is on you.
A criminal mindset: perhaps I should clarify in that I mean that most rapes (and violent felonies in general) are committed by people who deserve to die. While some people who only commit one or two are forgivable, most are not.
And even some that do not have an ingrained criminal mindset should pay for their violence with their lives, if there were perfect knowledge. I just don’t know what the standards should be for determining this: I’ll figure it out once we have perfect epistemological knowledge 
Not everyone shares your morals.
It’s a moot point because we don’t even know if he was assaulted. If the guy tapped his foot, put his hand under the stall, or came onto him verbally, it’s oogy, but the guy doesn’t deserve to be assaulted. If the guy was violent or forceful, that’s another thing entirely. But we don’t even know that.
So now we’ve gone from being “bothered,” to an “attempted rape.” This story grows by the second. This is how witch hunts get started.
What did he need to be protected from? He had already gotten away. He was safe. If he’d really thought the guy was a threat to someone else, he could have called the cops, but he was in no danger himself. The guy didn’t have his wallet. There was no reason at all to go back except to beat up a queer who freaked him out.
For the record, I don’t believe Carlson was making up his first version of the story. I believe he made up the second version and invented some more details as a CYA measure, but he probably did get hit on or possibly even touched [oh noes] one time, but look at him. I’m sure it was an honest mistake. He looks exactly like that’s what he would be there for. If that bowtie isn’t a signal, I don’t know what is.
I’m not the person who said what you quoted.
No reason in your mind, to be sure. After all, Carlson isn’t a Democrat.
What gets my hackles up about this is, even if you believe he made the whole thing up, it’s a story that reeks of homophobia. Tucker must have felt the need express his homophobia and to pander to his audience of homophobic, macho idiots who think beating up homosexuals is Okey Dokey. It’s not until he’s called on it that he suddenly remembers that he left out unverifiable information. Frankly, to me, it doesn’t matter which, if any, version is true (I’m already convinced he’s a lying partisan hack), because, either way, he and his audience come off as homophobic overreactionaries who revel in violence.
This is hysterical:
Why would that matter to me? I’m not a Democrat either. I don’t even hate Tucker Carlson. I’ve said before on this board that I generally find him more tolerable than a lot of rightie pundits and I’ve even recommended a book that he wrote.
I was actually prepared to somewhat defend him by saying that he shouldn’t be judged by something he did in high school (who among us wants to be judged by what we were like in high school?), but then his revision disinclined me to do so.
Scarborough laughing like a hyena when Carlson told him about banging this guy’s head into the wall was distateful to me as well. Scarborough is someone else I’ve said some good things about in the past, but his lockerroom chortling at a gay bashing story kind of turns me right off (and remember, this was ehen Carlson had only chracterized the initial encounter as “being bothered,” so there was not yet any “assault” revision going on). I think it was a bit of an unguarded moment for both of them. We saw a flash of how these guys really think.
They were laughing about the whole “I am not gay” thing. It was a joke. They were mocking Senator Craig. How that went over your head is beyond me…
They also laughed when Carlson said he bashed that guys head against the stall. That’s the moment I’m talking about.
Jesus. I think being obstinant and oppositional just for the sake of doing so is also a partisan position.
Everyone who keeps bringing up the bowtie has obviously not watched the video. He’s not wearing a bowtie. I’m surprised at some people here, especially Diogenes, weighing in when they haven’t even watched the video.
Also, for you “Tucker has to prove he doesn’t have ‘hte gay’” or “Tucker is pandering to his homophobic base” folks- Tucker regularly argues on his show in favor of gay marriage. That’s right, he’s proving he doesn’t have “hte gay” and “pandering to his homophobic base” by advocating gay marriage.
Also, how many of you would like to be judged in your mid-30s based on what you did in high school? I don’t agree with what he did but you can bet I would have done it when I was in high school.
They were treating the whole exchange as a joke. But if you really need something to be outraged about, apparently this fits the bill. Scarborough was ribbing Tucker about his “gay experience”. Like none of us has ever done that. :rolleyes:
I was making a joke that it would be an honest mistake for anyone cruising a men’s room to assume that the effete-looking, habitually bowtie-wearing Tucker Carlson would be there for the same thing. Whether he was wearing the bowtie in the video is irrelevant since a.) I was joking about what he would have been wearing during the high school incident, not what he was wearing on Scarborough, and b.) I was JOKING.
.
Tucker claims he went back in order to protect other people who might be “victimized.” Very noble of him, I’m sure.
But still and all . . . if they guy was still there when Tucker went back with his big ol’ friend, he would have been there if Tucker had simply returned with a security guard or a cop.
.