Today, Dan and Jordan explore the very bizarre second episode of Tucker Carlson's Twitter show. This installment sorta revolves around cultural taboos, and Tucker spends a lot of time complaining about how society doesn't like white supremacists enough.
It was comical insofar as she fell outside and then when I went to check on her, because I didn't see any of it happen, I went to check on her and they were like, what happened?
I think I almost remember us talking about this, like, ten years ago, drinking at, like, 4 a.m., yelling at each other about how great Batman Forever cups were.
I mean, what I appreciate most about this is that this is us saying that we're going to need to take some time off, so you're only going to get three episodes this week.
We'd want to make sure you had the complete obedience of everybody inside your borders who was authorized to use deadly force.
You would start with the military and then federal law enforcement and move your way down ultimately to agencies like the IRS.
Controlling the guns would be a top priority for you if you ever wanted to go dictatorial, if you wanted to be baby doc.
But let's say you had deeper ambitions.
Let's say you wanted the power not simply to control people's behavior, but to control How they think, not just their bodies, but their minds, as a god would.
In that case, you need to take charge of the society's taboos.
A taboo is something that by popular consensus is not allowed.
A taboo may not be illegal, but it doesn't need to be.
Over time, social prohibitions are more powerful and more enduring than laws.
Societies are defined by what they will not permit, as are famously religions.
Muslims don't eat pork, neither do Orthodox Jews.
Traditional Christians oppose extramarital sex, the Amish avoid electricity, and so on.
No, I'm talking about like the Saudis being complete control of oil.
Then you will have control of that country, and not just that country, but you will have control of many other countries as well that are dependent on that resource.
But I also think that, you know, you wouldn't be able to have total control, I think almost in any scenario.
Even if you owned all the police and all the military and controlled all of cultural taboos, I don't think you'd be able to have complete control over people's thoughts and minds.
But I kind of do got to give it up to him a little bit that I think that social norms and cultural, if you want to call it taboos, are things that lead often to law.
Things like the...
You know, changing opinions surrounding civil rights led to codification of the Civil Rights Act.
And definitely that list of things that Muslims, Christians, everybody does, there's definitely no examples of people in those religions constantly doing those things.
Well, because you also have, like, even at the beginning, the introduction of the premise that he's saying I disagree with, which is that, like, things are being forced from top down telling you what you can or can't like and dislike.
I do appreciate that he's already, like, you know, when we were talking about euphemisms and how that's kind of messed with our ability to understand what people actually mean?
In the same way, Tucker has found such a strident and, like, arrogant way to whine like a little baby.
Shameless public hypocrisy isn't really a taboo, because shameless hypocrites just pretend that they aren't shameless hypocrites, and their audiences don't care.
We're just inundated with so much more media now, and social media ends up giving rise to many more invasions of people's privacy, which allows you to see their hypocrisy.
That's the closest I can get with some of their talking points.
But still, the point remains, it doesn't really fit the mold of the rest of these.
Because the other ones that he listed, they fall into a particular category that you could call things that society decided to look down upon because they were associated with marginal groups, mostly the poor.
Stealing has never been taboo in this country as long as you're rich.
Corporate theft and wage theft have been the order of the day for generations, and if anything, the prevailing attitude towards the rich people who did the stealing was of aspiring to be like them.
The people who were stigmatized because of stealing were the people who had to steal to survive.
That was the taboo.
Needing to steal.
Flaunting your wealth has also never been taboo so long as you're rich.
It's only taboo to flaunt your wealth or to be perceived to be if you're a member of a group that society...
Consider the example of, like, the editorials about millennials needing to stop buying avocado toast.
If you aren't rich, showing any signs of affluence would typically cause accusations of irresponsibility or even make people suspicious.
Like Master P said on More to Life from Da Last Dawn, The feds follow me like I'm slinging crack, wasting tax dollars because I'm young, rich, famous, and black.
People society expects to be rich can buy castles, but for people society expects to be poor, you must be a criminal if you're driving a nice car.
Smoking weed on the street has also probably only been taboo because of the history of how propaganda about the drug was used to malign black and Hispanic populations, and the criminalization of it was a driving force of a drug war that needlessly destroyed countless lives.
Smoking tobacco on the street isn't taboo, and yet you're theoretically causing harm to the people around you.
Caffeine is no less of a drug, and you can drink coffee on the street.
Marijuana was seen as the drug of the lower classes, dangerous classes, not like the aristocratic cocaine, and that legacy lived on through that taboo.
Taking other people's money for not working is Tucker's way of saying accepting social assistance.
Again, this is only an issue when you're poor.
If you need help and accept that help, you take on a stigma.
When you're a big corporation or a rich asshole and you profit from subsidies or government largesse, you don't take on any of that stigma.
If you're a landowner who takes a paycheck from the government for not using your land to grow crops like a friend of mine from my childhood's dad did, you don't get scolded for taking other people's money for not working.
Society doesn't have a taboo against taking public money for not working.
It has a taboo against being in a position where you need help.
Four of the examples are really only things that are conditionally taboo, and the other two things are hitting women and being a hypocrite.
No one really cares if someone's a hypocrite, and hitting women's still very much not.
The other four are examples of things where it's becoming less stigmatized to be in a marginalized class and to do the thing that rich people have been doing all along.
The issue with the way Tucker is using this list is that he tries to transpose this diminishing of these taboos onto the idea that child molestation is a taboo that's falling.
This is ridiculous and pretty offensive on its face.
The argument fails in a bunch of ways, but what's important here is to track the argument that Tucker is making and how it flows.
Here he's set up an establishing point, which is that society's taboos are eroding their moral force, and that means that child molestation will soon lose its status as unacceptable as.
Sure.
That's sort of the...
The base which this house is going to be built on.
When Jeffrey Dahmer was bludgeoned to death in the bathroom of a Wisconsin prison in 1994, the Milwaukee district attorney had to caution the public not to turn Dahmer's killer into a folk hero.
Jeffrey Dahmer had molested and murdered children.
People felt justified in celebrating his death.
25 years later, that standard had changed dramatically in the state of Wisconsin, as in the rest of the country.
In the summer of 2020, during the BLM riots in Kenosha, 17-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse defended his life from a convicted child molester called Joseph Rosenbaum.
Rosenbaum was trying to kill Rittenhouse, so Rittenhouse shot him in self-defense.
But it was Joseph Rosenbaum whom the media cast as the victim of the story.
Kyle Rittenhouse, meanwhile, an underage boy fending off violence from a child molester, was denounced as the villain.
So, Tucker conveniently leaves off there that Rittenhouse was acquitted of that charge, and that he's made a bunch of money off his killings and has generally faced minimal consequences.
He was killed in prison, and it's always a good policy for officials to not condone murders taking place in custody for human rights issues, among other things.
Plus, you have to remember that anyone who would be in jail at the same place as Jeffrey Dahmer probably isn't a great person to uphold as a folk hero, since they almost certainly would be a murderer themselves prior to the murder of Dahmer.
The person who killed Dahmer may have killed him because of his crimes, but he also killed another inmate at the same time, so it might have just been...
violent flare-up that we're attributing to Dahmer's crimes so that we can have narrative satisfaction of feeling like Dahmer got what he deserved.
Yeah.
unidentified
The other guy this inmate killed was just in jail for killing his wife, so who knows?
The situation doesn't really track well to this, and Tucker's argument really only works if you assume that Dahmer was killed in jail because of his crimes, and that Rittenhouse killed Rosenbaum because of his past crimes.
Otherwise the crimes become kind of superfluous.
only one way of looking at this, which I think is what Tucker is doing.
There's one other way, which is to say that you can post hoc justify any violence committed against someone if their past is bad enough.
No, I mean, because here's his argument, though, and I'm going to personalize it, and it might seem extreme, but if I shot and killed Tucker, right, and then he's dead, I murdered him, but what if we find out that Tucker had molested a kid in the past?
No, what his past was, I can recontextualize him even looking at me as something by way of saying that, oh, see, the way that Tucker looked at me reminded me of the way he looked at the kid that he molested 20 years ago, so it's totally fine that I shot him.
I mean, it's a mess, and even if you accept this argument that, like, Rittenhouse was shooting him in self-defense, it's a little bit...
I'm going to say a lot of a bit of a dramatic overstatement to say that he was defending his life or describing Rittenhouse as, quote, an underage boy fending off violence from a child molester.
Tucker is intentionally distorting the situation in order to suit his premise that child molestation is no longer taboo.
Because society thinks it's not cool to kill an unarmed person at a protest and that people deserve moral consideration regardless of past crimes, that means that the powers that be are fine with child molesters.
So we talked about this story when Alex covered it, but now we're seeing some of the concrete topical overlaps between Alex and the most important man in the world.
As we follow this argument, Tucker is now asserting that the powers that be don't view child molesters as the worst of the worst because the Wall Street Journal reported on this Instagram stuff and nothing was done.
But that's not entirely true.
In the wake of this revelation, Meta set up a specific task force to address this and provide more human-based moderation, as well as blocking certain search terms and hashtags.
That's definitely not enough, and it's probably a fundamental problem with social media sites as a whole.
They're so large and so many users with only so much moderation capability that people who want to do horrific shit will probably continue to find ways to get around those rules.
Even if that is the case, that's Yeah.
We'll see.
I don't know how much faith we can have in that as a private company.
Let's say, for instance, they wanted to try and cut down on all this stuff by requiring a social security number, like Twitter did with the verification or something.
That is going to cut down on your user base, which cuts into your overhead.
So trying to fully safeguard this stuff, things that they could do...
Unfortunately, run into their bottom line.
So they'll do things that'll try to help, and ideally, hopefully, will help.
But as long as the motivation and their primary reason to exist is financial, they can never really actually solve the problem.
These people are a sexual minority, so pause before you attack them.
And in any case, it's not like pedophiles are barging into the Capitol building to sit in Nancy Pelosi's chair or asking uncomfortable questions about the last election.
This is about extreme right-wingers being the new child molesters in terms of being the worst people in society.
This is exactly the argument you would expect from someone who takes the abuse and exploitation of children very seriously.
Most people aren't into the use of the term minor attracted person, and one of the higher profile people who have promoted its use got a lot of shit over it.
That was Dr. Alan Walker of Old Dominion University, who was put on administrative leave and then resigned due to the fallout.
There is a conversation that people have surrounding harm reduction that says that there's a difference between someone who's attracted to underage persons and doesn't act on it, and someone who does act on it.
There's a sign of that discussion that contends that you can't really control who you're attracted to so someone doesn't choose that attraction but they can choose to act or not.
This school of thought argues that people who choose not to act on that attraction should be treated differently than those who offend and that by doing so it might be possible to minimize the harm that's actually done in the real world.
Part of that different treatment may be something like coming up with a different term.
I'm not sure where I come down on this necessarily because I haven't done enough looking into it to feel confident either way, but I do know that there's a very concerted effort on the part of the right-wing media to use terms like minor attracted person to argue that society is trying to mainstream child exploitation and that it's being adopted by the LGBTQ plus community.
This is obviously just a means to target, marginalize, and slander the LGBTQ plus community.
That's the use that Tucker has for it in this narrative, and it's entirely disconnected from any desire to minimize harm that's done to children.
Yeah.
unidentified
The pivot to talking about the 2020 election deniers and January 6 rioters is incredibly forced, because it has to be.
I mean, I don't know if I have anything more to say about the specifics of what Tucker said than that...
If Tucker, a professed Christian, says to me that pausing and thinking before hating is a bad idea, I hope he reads a book.
Because there's this really famous thing about where it's like, hey, before you hate somebody with violence and kill them, stop and pause for a second.
So Tucker should have waited a few days because there's so many more press releases about convictions and guilty pleas and arrests for January 6th defendants.
He could have bumped that number up to at least 24. You can see a bit of the form of the narrative that's taking shape here.
Society doesn't hate pedophiles enough anymore because people who stormed the Capitol are being arrested and charged.
The FBI isn't taking child abuse seriously because they're focused on white supremacists.
Obviously, this is stupid on its face because people can care about two things at the same time.
I'm not sure what Tucker would want the FBI's Washington office to do.
Would he be satisfied if some of those Instagram users were arrested also?
Or does this require Zuckerberg getting indicted?
I don't know what would be the condition wherein he'd be like, alright, this complaint has been satisfied.
You can also tell here that Tucker's a shithead, because he's using an arbitrary cutoff date that allows him to make this argument.
A bunch of J6 resolutions happened at the same time, but if you look just a little harder, you'll find a press release about an arrest that happened on May 10th that very well may have been someone who's using Instagram to distribute child exploitation material.
It was probably a different app, but the And Tucker should go and check out the press releases from the other FBI field offices.
Or maybe I should just play some dumbass games like him and complain that three out of the three press releases from the Las Vegas office this month have been about child exploitation arrests.
Suspiciously, no January 6th arrests in Las Vegas.
To stand up against the poison of white supremacy as I did my inaugural address to a single out as the most dangerous terrorist threat to our homeland is white supremacy.
White supremacy is the most dangerous threat to the American homeland.
Joe Biden just told us that.
It's more dangerous than the threat of nuclear war with Russia.
It's more dangerous than the threat of the Mexican drug cartels, who've already killed hundreds of thousands of Americans and are now in control of swaths of our southwestern states.
So white supremacy is probably a bigger real-world issue than nuclear war with Russia, seeing as that seems pretty unlikely, whereas white supremacy is something that definitely exists.
It also seems like a bigger problem than these drug cartels that apparently control large swaths of the country and have killed hundreds of thousands of Americans.
I'm guessing Tucker means that these deaths happen because...
Not through murders, but he's vague enough that the image is terrifying.
And as to the question of defining white supremacy and white nationalism, Tucker should just ask his staff.
They definitely know.
He could ask his old buddy and former head writer Blake Neff, who had to resign after his racist message board posts were revealed, including some weird instances where things posted on the forum mirrored things that would show up on Tucker's show.
The former editor of his site, The Daily Caller, named Scott Greer, got busted posting racist articles.
for Richard Spencer's outlet under a pen name.
They used to publish the writing of Jason Kessler, one of the organizers of the Unite the Right rally.
I think if Tucker is looking for some clarity on exactly what white nationalists and racists want and are about, he has access to a lot more primary sources than most people.
We've certainly gone far afield from what seemed like the top of this piece, which was the erosion of taboos in America leading to child molestation being normalized as evidenced by people being mad at Kyle Rittenhouse on the fact that there have been more January 6th related FBI press releases this month.
This is a pretty poorly constructed monologue, I have to say.
Maybe you're telling on yourself a little bit based upon who you want to be compared to.
Do you know what I'm saying?
Like, maybe if I say something like, hey, listen, I'm an asshole, but I'm not as bad as somebody who fucking takes all day at the self-checkout line with 50 items, right?
Kind of have an idea of where I place myself in society.
You know, if you say, well, at least I'm not a pedophile.
I think you're kind of saying a lot.
I think you're kind of saying a lot more than maybe you think you're saying.
So the issue here that he's coming to is, you know, got this white nationalist, white supremacist terms that Biden's throwing around, but we don't have any definitions for these things.
How many people are currently working on this American white ethnostate project?
And what are the chances they're going to pull it off?
Our guess is not very many and precisely zero.
But we can't say for sure because no one has showed us the numbers.
These are not rhetorical questions.
When the president of the United States describes something as the worst possible crime Americans can commit, you have a right to know what that crime is.
You used to have that right.
Under our pre-revolutionary legal code before George Floyd, questions were easy to answer.
A crime was defined as something that an elected legislator had explicitly banned, usually an act that hurts somebody else.
In America, crimes were described precisely with words in English and then preserved in books, which you could read your What?
unidentified
If you ever wondered whether you were committing a crime, you could just look it up.
He's just pretending it's so incomprehensible to make the audience think that the people pointing out racist trends in America, including Tucker's own show, are just making completely baseless and confusing arguments.
When no one's willing to define the offense, you can't be sure whether or not you're committing it.
You could be accused at any time in everything you have taken from you.
You live in fear.
Remember this guy?
unidentified
Emmanuel Cafferty was driving near a Black Lives Matter protest in Poway in his SDG&E truck when he says he noticed somebody following him and trying to get his attention.
Later, that person posted a picture of him making what some believed is a white supremacy symbol.
On Twitter, Cafferty says he had no idea about any white power symbols and was just cracking his knuckles outside his window when the picture was taken of him.
Later that day, he says he was notified by SDG&E that he would be suspended pending an investigation, and a few days later, he was fired.
What that man did was so offensive, as you just saw, that local news had to blur the photograph of his hand.
He was fired from his job.
His life was destroyed for cracking his knuckles.
He didn't know cracking his knuckles was racist in his defense, but then nobody did until the day that poor Emanuel Cafferty was unwise enough to crack them.
When a crime has no definition, anyone can be guilty of it.
This seems like a really unfortunate case of people being a little overzealous and calling this guy out, and that's no good.
But I have two points that I want to bring up.
One, this isn't a crime.
Two, I suspect that Cafferty's termination didn't come about because of this tweet.
I obviously have no way of knowing for sure, but if I had to guess, I would assume that in the course of SDG&E's investigation of his employment, they found cause that merited termination.
Here's the basis for my suspicion.
The first point is that there was a massive outcry about this case, and not just from the normal right-wing shithead cancel culture crowd.
The Atlantic wrote about it, and Cafferty was featured on an episode of Monica Lewinsky's series, 15 Minutes of Shame.
The person who tweeted this picture came forward and said that they misinterpreted it, even.
Another issue that I come to on this claim is that Cafferty, you know, they say Cafferty was just cracking his knuckles in the picture, but this is what it says in the Atlantic article about that day.
Quote, Cafferty told me a few days ago the other driver began to act even more strangely.
He flashed what looked to Cafferty like an okay hand gesture and started cussing him out.
When the light turned green, Cafferty drove off, hoping to put an end to this disconcerting encounter.
But when Cafferty reached another red light, the man, now holding a cell phone camera, was there again.
Do it!
Do it!
He shouted.
Unsure what to do, Cafferty copied the gesture the other driver kept.
On the GoFundMe that his family set up and in that news article, it says, quote, On June 3rd, a stranger posted a picture of Emanuel Cafferty on social media and falsely accused him of displaying a white power hand gesture in his company truck.
Emmanuel had his arm extended out the window and was merely stretching his fingers, unaware of any such hand gesture.
On October 26th of last year, Cafferty himself filed to dismiss the case against the tweeter with prejudice.
meaning that it's not an action he can reintroduce.
His suit against SDG&E for defamation went the exact same route, except that he requested it be dismissed with prejudice on June 1st, 2023, only two weeks ago.
There are some other possibilities of what could be going on.
It's imaginable that Cafferty realized that he would have a very difficult time proving defamation claims, but he may be still intending to pursue an unjust termination case against SDG&E.
They've stood by their decision, though, and I can't find any evidence of other suits being filed, so I'm not sure what...
Like, I don't know of any reason or evidence to suggest that he was making a racist hand gesture when he was photographed, and all indications point to it being really inappropriate that this person tweeted what they did.
Having said that, I don't know enough about this case to say that this is the ultimate reason he got fired.
In the case that it was an employer trying to cover their ass by firing someone, then I would be on Cafferty's side.
In the case that there was grounds for his termination and that thing only came to light because of this incident, I think that sucks and it's bad luck, but I don't know what to do.
I wouldn't base an entire moral philosophy around dealing with what happens in this particular situation and then claim that it's all because people hate white people now.
And also, as we're listening to this as part of Tucker's presentation, at the end of the day, this isn't an issue involving a crime at all.
At most, there was an act of defamation by this Twitter poster, which would have been resolved through a lawsuit, which was filed and then voluntarily dismissed with prejudice by Cafferty.
Yeah, what I find interesting is that a through-line here, and I don't know if this is on purpose or not, but a through-line here is that the government should be more oppressive.
The through-line is that all of these private companies, the powers that be...
Are the ones doing everything and that the government needs to do more to stop them.
What Tucker is describing as the old system is still in place.
Trial molestation is still a crime, and it's still not a crime to have unfashionable opinions, if that's how he wants to describe being a white supremacist.
Further, the government isn't accusing people of anything.
This is coming straight off of him talking about Cafferty, and the government isn't involved in that story at all.
Biden brought up in a speech that white supremacy was a threat to our country, but I assure you he wasn't talking about your private beliefs and microaggressions.
The culmination of this monologue, the go-home message, Seems to be a bit weird.
On the one hand, Tucker is saying that our country should be governed by taboos which grow and evolve with the times.
But simultaneously, he's saying to the audience that they need to hold fast to their taboos as if their life depended on it, steadfastly refusing to change from the innate wisdom about right and wrong that they had from birth.
And when you say it doesn't make sense, that's not what you mean.
Like, it's not that it doesn't make sense.
The messaging makes sense, and, like, I get the point that he's trying to make, and I get the ways that he's using, like, some poorly designed rhetoric tricks in order to pursue his points.