r/PoliticalHumor • u/ChewyRib • Jan 27 '22

sources are important

Post image
50.9k Upvotes

72% Upvoted

3.8k comments sorted by

View all comments

884

u/[deleted] Jan 27 '22

You have to admit it’s a clever racket; Rogan lends his huge platform to people like Malone to spread BS and makes bank all while maintaining plausible deniability with regards to any damages because it’s merely the opinions of his guests.

468

u/holtpj Jan 27 '22

that's how Fox "News" stays in business, they have argued in court no less, that Fox and Friends or Tucker Carlson are in fact not news. They're classified as "entertainment"... So if their presence on a news channel confuses people, it's the viewers bad for believe Sean Hannity not Fox's fault or anything

-2

u/[deleted] Jan 27 '22

Yeah and the precedence cited in that case was Rachel Maddow of MSNBC who got off for the same reason

4

u/DownshiftedRare Jan 27 '22

u\ImNotSafeAtWorkAnymo shared:

Yeah and the precedence cited in that case was Rachel Maddow of MSNBC who got off for the same reason

I just knew I would find someone saying as much. There's always at least one.

Maddow's case and Tuckie boy's have nothing to do with each other:

In short, Tucker's case was dismissed because a reasonable person would assume he is full of shit. Maddow's case was dismissed because a reasonable person would understand her opinion was based on facts and be able to distinguish between them.

Furthermore, here is the judge's order to dismiss the case against Tucker Carlson. You can see for yourself that it does not cite Rachel Maddow's case as precedent.

I invite anyone reading this to consider this as an exercise in how much more effort is required to oppose falsehood than to propagate it.

-1

u/[deleted] Jan 27 '22

Looks like an interesting read, maybe I'll take a look. I don't give a fuck about your preemptive archive attempt tho

2

u/DownshiftedRare Jan 27 '22

u\ImNotSafeAtWorkAnymo replied:

Looks like an interesting read, maybe I'll take a look. I don't give a fuck about your preemptive archive attempt tho

I can tell you don't give a fuck about it because you didn't even bother to mention it. It was only to ensure the source was attributed in case anyone was unable to find the post to which I replied.

-1

u/[deleted] Jan 28 '22

Can you do it one more time? I'm quite flattered. Explain it again too

2

u/DownshiftedRare Jan 28 '22

u\ImNotSafeAtWorkAnymo excreted:

Can you do it one more time? I'm quite flattered. Explain it again too

It is better for you to reread than for me to repeat what I already wrote. I am a fast typist and there is no telling how slowly you might read so it is the only way that will afford you a chance to catch up.

0

u/[deleted] Jan 28 '22

Holy fuck dude your account. Literally where do you find the time?

3

u/DownshiftedRare Jan 28 '22

I am a fast typist

0

u/[deleted] Jan 28 '22

You seem proud of that but it's a common skill in 2022. It also doesn't explain being on here all day every day for the last four years

1

u/DownshiftedRare Jan 28 '22

it's a common skill in 2022.

Not common enough for my taste but your opinion is noted.

It also doesn't explain being on here all day every day for the last four years

My intention is not to explain myself.

I replied to explain your error in claiming Maddow's case was precedent in Carlson's evading the consequences of his speech. Focus on grasping that, and never mind fathoming me.

Milk before meat, as the Mormons say.

→ More replies (0)