Read on Twitter
This is a morally reprehensible statement, the implications of which being both a threat to public safety and a complete disregard of civil liberties.
@TuckerCarlson has proven himself to be dangerous with his current platform and should be removed. #FireTuckerCarlson https://twitter.com/yashar/status/1298776744854302721
@TuckerCarlson has proven himself to be dangerous with his current platform and should be removed. #FireTuckerCarlson https://twitter.com/yashar/status/1298776744854302721
The key piece here is ultimately the validation of the shooter's motive. This is not maintaining order in any sense. Under no other circumstances would media be attempting to justify the reasoning behind entering a crowd while fully armed with the intent to harm or intimidate.
The phrasing of news media is always a conscious choice made to tell particular story. Carlson shows empathy for the shooter's intentions, and then takes it a step farther to imply his actions are not only understandable, but necessary given the circumstances.
It's also clear what Carlson is defending here - by calling it "maintaining order when no one else would" - is the shooter's intention to intimidate or harm by entering a protest as a fully armed counter-protestor in the first place. He's not talking about self defense.
I have explained my perspective as to why 1) Carlson’s coverage phrases the story in a way that justifies, if not glorifies the shooter’s motive, and 2) why the shooter’s motive should not be glorified or justified. I’m muting this thread, there’s nothing else to say.
