Tucker Boycott, Sargon Ban Prove Social Justice Is Just A Cover
Tucker Boycott, Sargon Ban Prove Social Justice Is Just A Cover and that Activists don't really care.Nate Silver came to the defense of Tucker and social justice activists accused him of just being a white male and not understanding marginalization, except he does as an LGTB Jewish man.These far left activists don't actually care about these causes as evidenced by the Tucker boycott or with Patreon defending the right over Sargon. It shows that this is a tribal action not a political one, that these social justice and feminist activists just want to "win" against their perceived opponents.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Over the past week, activists have been targeting Tucker Carlson, trying to get advertisers to pull from his program.
And it's working.
His show on Fox News has lost around 20 or so corporate sponsors, and The Hollywood Reporter notes that his commercial segments have noticeably fewer ads in them.
There's an interesting overlap between what's happening with Tucker and what's happening with Sargon on Patreon.
In both circumstances, activists have targeted things they've said and pulled them out of context to use as weapons.
They won't debate your ideas, they just want to go for your money.
With Tucker Carlson, they're claiming that he's had all immigrants, that immigration in general is making our country poorer and dirtier, when that's not what he was talking about.
In the instance of Sargon, they're taking his statements where he used the language of his harassers against them and claiming he was targeting people based on their race or whatever.
What happened with Sargon is very similar to what Sarah Jung did.
Sarah Jung was using the language of her harassers, and the left defended her, saying that we understand why she did it.
But in the instance of Sargon, they don't defend him.
In fact, far-left activists targeted another platform he was using to try and get him removed.
Sargon was banned from Patreon, at least we believe he was banned, because far-right or alt-right or white nationalist, whatever you want to call it, targeted Patreon, pretending to be concerned about racism, when in fact they actually aren't, because they just want to get him banned.
This tactic works.
It doesn't matter if it's the left or the right.
The issue is that those who are willing to use this tactic will succeed in removing those they do not like.
So today, let's take a look at these stories, because there's more evidence to suggest the activists targeting both of these individuals don't actually care about what they claim to be fighting for.
But before we get started, please head over to TimCast.com forward slash donate if you want to support my work.
There is a monthly donation option through PayPal, I take cryptocurrency, there's a physical address, and if you want to go to the shop, there's clothing that I've actually designed myself you can buy to support my work.
First, let's take a look at what happened with Tucker Carlson.
The Hollywood Reporter notes he has shed major advertisers as boycott grows.
Now, this story's from a couple days ago, and they say, Tucker Carlson Tonight, the primetime Fox News opinion show, publicly lost four more corporate advertisers on Wednesday, with Samsung, SodaStream, Pfizer, and SanDisk joining a list of at least 16 other companies that have pledged to stop advertising on the program After its host said last week that immigration makes the United States dirtier.
The job website Indeed.com decided in recent weeks that it has no plans to advertise on the show because the site is for everyone, regardless of background or beliefs.
However, Tucker Carlson was talking about illegal immigration and low-skilled workers coming in, not immigration in general.
This seems to be taken out of context.
In a story from CNN, they point out that Carlson has found some supporters in unlikely places.
Jack Schafer, the Politico media critic who said he dislikes Carlson's show and wishes it would find itself an immediate shallow grave in the TV show boneyard, wrote in the column Wednesday, As much as the Carlson show pains me, the calls by activists for an advertiser boycott pain me more.
Advertisers tend to be timid, overreactive, running from controversy and conflict.
And in times of perceived crisis, their timidity spreads to publishers, which is bad for journalism, Schafer wrote.
It's easy to imagine today's boycotts turning into tomorrow's blacklist.
So how does this relate to the Sargon issue?
Well, there is a pastebin going around, in fact someone sent it to me, that claims that what Sargon does can never be acceptable, that it's racism, it's bigotry, etc.
But the people who produced this are accused of being alt-right.
I mean, most people, even the Daily Beast, had acknowledged Sargon was debating the extreme right, as they call it.
I don't know if that's a fair statement, because I don't know who these people are, but at least the common narrative going around is that Sargon was arguing with people he perceived as racists, so he used the language they use against them, much like Sarah Jong did.
If it's true that they produced this payspin accusing Sargon of being racist and fighting against it, well then it's fair to say they don't actually care about what Sargon does or what he believes because they themselves don't fear or hate racism and bigotry.
They're just trying to get him deplatformed.
And something similar can be said for what's happening with Tucker Carlson.
Do they really care about who Tucker is?
Probably not, as evidenced by a new thread by Glenn Greenwald.
He tweeted, This exchange with Nate Silver, 5'38", after he denounced
pressuring Carlson's advertisers, highlighting a fascinating dynamic,
if you oppose censorship, people falsely accuse you of not understanding marginalization,
even though that's often the reason for opposing censorship.
He highlights these tweets, one from Nate Silver defending Jack Schaefer, saying,
Jack is right.
The logical endpoint of deeming advertisers to have endorsed the political messages of the shows they run ads on is that only milquetoast both-sides-ism with a pro-corporate bent will be advertising-supported, if any political content is ad-supported at all.
Sleeping Giants responded.
This is one of the organizations targeting Tucker's show.
You are speaking as a publisher, not a citizen.
If you're a person of color or a member of the LGBTQ community, or an immigrant, these companies are literally footing the bill for you to be vilified every week.
Bigotry should not be deemed political.
That's a big part of the issue.
In response, Silver pointed out that he himself is gay.
He said, I'm just old enough to remember when conservative groups urged boycotts of advertisers and networks who were seen as promoting LGBTQ or other non-traditional lifestyles.
That strongly influences my views on the subject.
Greenwald noted, like all powers, censorship will typically be used against marginalized groups, not to protect them.
That's what it means to be marginalized, that powerful factions act against you.
The experience of being in a marginalized group should make one fear not support censorship.
In response to that thread, Shannon Watts tweeted, Glenn Greenwald responded, And that's why this story, I feel, is important.
politics so manipulatively, selectively, and offensively.
LGBTs and Jews are either marginalized minorities who face bigotry and racism, or just white
guys who have no right to speak.
It shifts based on the petty needs of the moment.
And that's why this story, I feel, is important, because it speaks to me personally.
For those that watch my videos, you know that very often I point out that I'm mixed race.
And a lot of people make a joke about it, they make a meme about it, but there's a reason that I do it, and it's because I kind of have to.
When I get attacked for not understanding, being part of a marginalized group, it's just not true.
And I feel like early on, years ago, I thought this was actually something that needed to be pointed out.
At Occupy Wall Street, people would either think I was a white male, or just not know what I was, and thus I face different forms of discrimination from different people.
Sometimes, people would immediately just agree with whatever I said when they found out that I was mixed.
Or, they would immediately disagree with whatever I said, or tell me I can't speak because they assume I'm just a white male.
And that's what I see with what Glenn Green is tweeting about.
That they will accuse you of being a minority or not a minority depending on what you agree with.
I called this at one point, I think I called it Schrodinger's Person of Color, but someone pointed out a better one.
It's the Heisenberg Uncertainty Person of Color.
If you're not familiar, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, I'm not an expert on this, but it's basically that we can't measure at what point an electron becomes a wave or a particle.
Basically, that as soon as we try to look at it, it changes from one position to another.
I'm probably destroying the understanding of what this is, but the point I'm trying to make is, if I agree with these people, if I say, you know what, Tucker should be banned, they'll say, see, Tim, as a marginalized person, understands because he's mixed race.
If I say, no, actually, I think it's wrong to boycott people, they will say, well, you're a white male.
And that's exactly what they're doing to Nate Silver, who, it's my understanding, he is a gay Jewish man.
Because he defended Tucker, they are saying, you can't possibly understand.
And then he has to come out and say, actually, he is gay.
As if that will absolve him of his wrong think.
Unfortunately, it will not.
It won't save him.
The activists don't care if you're marginalized or not.
This is a tactic against their perceived enemy tribe.
Today, someone tweeted, I was tweeting about the Sargon situation, and someone tweeted to me that they believe I held conservative views.
They said, oh, but bakeries shouldn't have to bake a cake for somebody, but patrons should have to support Sargon?
Haha, how are those conservatives' beliefs doing for you now?
And I was like, what?
You guys watch my videos, you know that I actually side somewhat in favor of the gay couple in that argument.
Look, he lost because there were technical reasons.
I'm talking about the gay wedding cake baker issue.
It's complicated.
And I recognize the nuance.
But my opinion is typically on the liberal side.
I typically... I mean, pretty much always defend liberal positions.
But these people don't care about politics.
It's about combating the enemy tribe.
So because I'm willing to speak up in defense of Tucker's show and say, you shouldn't boycott him simply because you disagree with him, challenge his idea and prove him wrong, they say, you must be conservative, therefore you must believe all of these things.
But one thing that's clear.
With what happened with Sargon, activists don't actually care what he believes.
Why?
Well, there's actually more evidence.
We know, at least it's believed, that Sargon was debating against people on the extreme right.
That's what the Daily Beast calls it.
Again, I don't know how you define these people, but it is widely perceived, even among Patreon, that Sargon was debating racists.
Why then would Patreon defend those racists?
They knew what Sargon was doing.
Interesting how this works, isn't it?
It's because principles be damned.
They just want to target someone on the other side.
And now we can see something else really interesting in the Sargon debacle.
The woman who was hired, who talked to me and who made these statements, she was hired recently.
She is now citing what happened at VidCon with Sargon of Akkad as more evidence he should have been banned from the platform, once again.
Even though, at the time, the story was that Sargon didn't do anything wrong and Patreon investigated the situation and said his channel is fine, a woman who was recently hired is going back to use that to justify having him removed.
Okay, so let's say that once again.
Patreon admitted Sargon did not break the rules at VidCon.
But this woman doesn't care about the rules.
She doesn't care what is written down.
All that matters is she takes action against an enemy of the tribe.
Or perhaps she's just scared and acting at the behest of racists.
But that also paints another problem.
Why would Patreon defend the racists in this circumstance?
It's plain and simple.
Sargon was arguing against identitarians.
The woman and Patreon are also identitarian.
They are aligned politically and want to defend those values against anyone who is not part of their spectrum, I guess.
It's really weird, isn't it?
How Patreon would actually defend the racists.
It shows you that what they claim to be fighting for is not real.
They're not actually fighting for these things.
That's why when you see a black conservative, they insult them and call them white supremacists.
That's why progressive activists who push this white supremacy narrative tend to be upper-class white people.
Because they will claim to be fighting for a cause, and they are not actually fighting for that cause.
It's just a game.
You are the enemy tribe.
They will ascribe whatever belief they want to you to smear you.
And that's something that I've been experiencing now.
People are making up fake quotes about me.
Taking quotes I've taken from news stories and mashing them together, and then screenshotting it so you can't actually watch the video to prove it wrong, and sharing it among other activists to try and smear me.
They don't actually care that I am an oppressed, mixed-race social liberal that is pro-choice and believes many of the same policies they do.
They don't care that I would actually most likely vote for a social liberal politician over a conservative politician.
They don't care.
It's not about politics.
It is about tribe.
It is about them saying my side is going to win by any means necessary.
Long story short, I think we can clearly see here, by Patreon defending racists over Sargon, How Sleeping Giants is claiming that a gay Jewish man, Nate Silver, doesn't understand marginalization, that they don't actually fight for what they claim to fight for.
They don't.
It's a lie.
It is just tribalism.
But let me know what you think in the comments below.
We'll keep the conversation going.
You can follow me on Twitter at TimCast.
Stay tuned.
New videos every day at 4 p.m.
I'll have more videos on my second channel today at 6 p.m.
