KLAMarine said:
vivster said:

I love that the idea that a person having the right to not get murdered or killed by neglect is somehow political extremism. Apparently the freedom to live is not within the spectrum of what the US calls "freedom" and has to be politically enforced first.

Who's calling it political extremism?

Alara317 said:

Jesus christ how culturally ignorant are you? Yes, we know it isn't JUST black people being killed, but the reality is that they are being targetted with increased rates and there are far more examples of black (men in particular) people being killed by cops despite them being a minority in the US. THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT. IT's not saying ONLY black lives matter or ONLY black lives are being affected, but that we live in a world where it seems culturally accepted to treat black people with less respect. Why are you being so aggressively ignorant on this issue? Why are you being so stubborn in your right to be disingenuous? what do you gain by trying to devalue the very real strife affecting millions of people in your country? 

THIS is why BLM as a movement exists. People like you are the reason it needs to be made clear now more than ever that systemic racism is a very real and very pervasive thing. You are a glowing example of how racism persists in this world. You might not be burning crosses or wearing a ghost robe, but you're enabling it by pretending racism doesn't exist or otherwise refusing to accept its pervasive influence. 

"but the reality is that they are being targetted with increased rates and there are far more examples of black (men in particular) people being killed by cops despite them being a minority in the US"

>Or because of the greater reporting on bad interactions between police and black men, too many black men are more paranoid as a result when it comes to police thus interactions between black men and police are sabotaged from the outset. I'm sure most get nervous when interacting with police; for a black man, regularly confronted with tales of brutality, are reasonably more fearful on average than their lighter counterparts...

And police are human too. They get nervous too and they're trained to always be ready and when confronted with a nervous black man, more nervous than they're used to with other people, they might be put more on edge fearing the person they've detained or pulled over might be armed or perhaps could be concealing something incriminating in their car. I can't blame them though, things can go from 0 to 100 in the blink of an eye. Officer Riley Jarecki can tell you about that:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3FGcN2Rlig

"People like you are the reason it needs to be made clear now more than ever that systemic racism is a very real and very pervasive thing"

>I can't say I'm convinced. Please help convince me.

The cop in that vid did panic for sure,that's not the best behaviour.

Take cover and shoot tires and when the driver gets out she could have shot his legs or she could call for backup when he drove away after shooting the tires.

I wonder about the entry exam for police training and how they train them to behave under stress.



Around the Network
sundin13 said:
coolbeans said:

I'll give credit in one respect: at least the initial responses continued to climb up in complexity (until they didn't).  Anyways...

Although I find Dr. King's assessment incisive on its own, 'cry of the unheard' during the Minneapolis riots is just a linguistic trick turned battering ram to paper over immoral actions.

My first issue would be the context between then and now.  We're talking about a quote trying to understand riots during The Civil Rights Era.  The motivations of those involved were infinitely more clear and pinned their response on discriminatory abuses that was explicitly allowed by law.  That codified exploitation has been removed.  And I'd argue the 60's rioters MLK references were more logical in methodology.  Their aim was more deliberately honed in clashes against police.  While there tends to be property fallout in a riot, I'd say it pales in comparison to marching through downtown Minneapolis with deliberate intention to complete smash 'n grabs or raze a local business to the ground, especially when you've been successfully maintaining peaceful protests beforehand.  Not to mention the violent acts against civilians (as I've already touched on).

Another problem comes back to this: where's the "unheard" in all of this?  George Floyd was one of the most popular news developments across the globe.  It seemed like most agreed this was a wrongful death.  Even before fires started, all four officers were fired outright with investigations already underway for their actions.  Sure, the follow-through on charges didn't happen that same day.  It never does.  Usually you expect them to be formally charged a few months down the line (a reform that's worth pursuing).

[That's all I can muster before logging off.]

I will acknowledge that a lot of progress has been made since the '60's, but at the same time, I believe we should also acknowledge how much work we have left to do. We have taken a lot of steps towards justice, however we haven't gotten there as of yet, and the interesting thing about justice is that every step leading up to it is still injustice. It doesn't really matter how much injustice is behind us, as the mere fact of this progress does little to help those who are suffering under our current, broken system. These systems are still mired in injustice, so these calls for reform are just as valid today as they have been for the last several hundred years. The fact that clear racism codified in law has been removed simply provides a mask, to allow people to justify their blindness to these flaws.

That said, I don't believe I agree with you assessment of the 60s riots. Your wording is a bit muddy, so I could be misunderstanding you, but the riots of the 60s were significantly more violent than what we have been seeing over the past several months. If your assertion is that what we are seeing now is worse than those riots, I believe you are sorely mistaken (however, again, I could be misunderstanding you as your wording wasn't entirely clear).

Additionally, I think you and I have severely different understandings of what it means to be unheard. If the people are speaking out against injustices in our criminal justice system for decades and the necessary changes aren't made, I consider that being unheard. It doesn't matter if it makes international news. The fact that it can make international news and still we don't see change says to me that those in power simply aren't listening. And while I am glad that the individuals involved in this incident were arrested, these protests don't start and end with George Floyd, and arresting a few officers neither rights this wrong, nor acts to ensure that this same thing won't happen again. We need systemic, proactive change, not a couple of band-aids.

I'll admit I got some agree/disagree whiplash in the first paragraph upon first glance.  Without question, I follow the call towards a more justice yet there's something suspicious about such a tone/emphasis when making steps towards a better future.  "Interesting" as it may be, does it really help to be casually reminded that we're just perpetually failing less?  I'll jump back to why that's important because I think this ties in well with your 3rd paragraph.

To clarify: I didn't intend to argue the Minneapolis riots (2020) were more violent than many of the 60's riots.  Given that MLK quote is likely responding to the Chicago '66 riots, it'd be irresponsible of me to disregard the paramilitary groups operating back then.  What I'm trying to dive into is a clearer background as to why cry/language of the unheard strikes me as linguistic convenience here.  I'll do a breakdown to make things clearer:

  • Something I previously forgot: for all the eloquence of that MLK quote, it's still important to remember he still disparaged non-defensive violence and believed it counter-productive to reaching a better society.  "Woke-activists" today may scoff at liberals utilizing the 'content of your character' quote ad nauseam, but there's several more qualifiers to consider before busting out 'unheard' by comparison.
  • While there's no denying how dangerous of an environment the 60's riots created, it's tough not to look at that background with... enhanced sympathy.  I'm willing to bet you have a bigger Rolodex of historical information of that time period than me, so I think you follow my intent.  During the Civil Rights, we're looking at something beyond the metric of disproportionate pull-overs, targeted stop 'n frisk, and such.  Racial aggression to the extent of consistently offensive attacks that were both validated by law & the majority of the Southern community is a dimension that pales in comparison to today.
  • Even with that considered, it's not hard to find vocal agitators within some groups that spread the blame for today's transgressions to more people.  It's also about including inactive involvement, meaning you're contributing to modern injustices by being an Average Joe punching in your time and not rallying to the streets.  For me: I believe this kind of abrasive attitude, tied to otherwise sympathetic cries against modern injustices, played into those riots to a great degree.

Maybe we do.  Just so we understand: I was trying to incorporate it within MLK's quote and the wider context.  Reaching international stations isn't the end-all to being "unheard."  When considering how previous eras implemented tools to make sure cries fall on deaf ears?  Seems like a night/day difference on the outset.  And although I'm with you on continued systemic problems, it'd be unfair to say that no efforts have been made.  If looking at New York (or perhaps limited to NYC), it seems like attention given to bail reform was a big deal to numerous people.  Its effectiveness is something I haven't dedicated much time on.  Even VGChartz's favorite leader, Mango Mussolini, can get something like The First Step Act Bill signed into law.  There are a plurality of different coalitions trying to move the needle forward in these ways.

Like that of the MPD officer arrests, maybe you'll bring up that these are band-aids of different sizes.  Okay.  But isn't this way more productive on the whole?  To tie this back into my initial frustration: it seems like your quasi-defeatist language at the beginning and the seismic redresses required could make it easier to excuse this kind of destructive behavior.  You are being perfectly measured.  I need to make that clear.  There's just something about the protectiveness that gets to me, as though taking a hard-line stance in delineating protests from riots means you're radioactive.

[About as pretty a bow I can make atm.  Due to my weekend plans, future responses may take longer & be more sporadic.]



September 2020 Articles: 

https://www.vgchartz.com/article/445274/through-the-darkest-of-times-xone/ (Through the Darkest of Times Review - 7/10)

https://www.gamingnexus.com/Article/6161/Windbound/ (Windbound Review - 8.0/10)

https://www.vgchartz.com/article/445393/battletoads-xone/ (Battletoads Review - 7/10)

coolbeans said:
sundin13 said:

I will acknowledge that a lot of progress has been made since the '60's, but at the same time, I believe we should also acknowledge how much work we have left to do. We have taken a lot of steps towards justice, however we haven't gotten there as of yet, and the interesting thing about justice is that every step leading up to it is still injustice. It doesn't really matter how much injustice is behind us, as the mere fact of this progress does little to help those who are suffering under our current, broken system. These systems are still mired in injustice, so these calls for reform are just as valid today as they have been for the last several hundred years. The fact that clear racism codified in law has been removed simply provides a mask, to allow people to justify their blindness to these flaws.

That said, I don't believe I agree with you assessment of the 60s riots. Your wording is a bit muddy, so I could be misunderstanding you, but the riots of the 60s were significantly more violent than what we have been seeing over the past several months. If your assertion is that what we are seeing now is worse than those riots, I believe you are sorely mistaken (however, again, I could be misunderstanding you as your wording wasn't entirely clear).

Additionally, I think you and I have severely different understandings of what it means to be unheard. If the people are speaking out against injustices in our criminal justice system for decades and the necessary changes aren't made, I consider that being unheard. It doesn't matter if it makes international news. The fact that it can make international news and still we don't see change says to me that those in power simply aren't listening. And while I am glad that the individuals involved in this incident were arrested, these protests don't start and end with George Floyd, and arresting a few officers neither rights this wrong, nor acts to ensure that this same thing won't happen again. We need systemic, proactive change, not a couple of band-aids.

I'll admit I got some agree/disagree whiplash in the first paragraph upon first glance.  Without question, I follow the call towards a more justice yet there's something suspicious about such a tone/emphasis when making steps towards a better future.  "Interesting" as it may be, does it really help to be casually reminded that we're just perpetually failing less?  I'll jump back to why that's important because I think this ties in well with your 3rd paragraph.

To clarify: I didn't intend to argue the Minneapolis riots (2020) were more violent than many of the 60's riots.  Given that MLK quote is likely responding to the Chicago '66 riots, it'd be irresponsible of me to disregard the paramilitary groups operating back then.  What I'm trying to dive into is a clearer background as to why cry/language of the unheard strikes me as linguistic convenience here.  I'll do a breakdown to make things clearer:

  • Something I previously forgot: for all the eloquence of that MLK quote, it's still important to remember he still disparaged non-defensive violence and believed it counter-productive to reaching a better society.  "Woke-activists" today may scoff at liberals utilizing the 'content of your character' quote ad nauseam, but there's several more qualifiers to consider before busting out 'unheard' by comparison.
  • While there's no denying how dangerous of an environment the 60's riots created, it's tough not to look at that background with... enhanced sympathy.  I'm willing to bet you have a bigger Rolodex of historical information of that time period than me, so I think you follow my intent.  During the Civil Rights, we're looking at something beyond the metric of disproportionate pull-overs, targeted stop 'n frisk, and such.  Racial aggression to the extent of consistently offensive attacks that were both validated by law & the majority of the Southern community is a dimension that pales in comparison to today.
  • Even with that considered, it's not hard to find vocal agitators within some groups that spread the blame for today's transgressions to more people.  It's also about including inactive involvement, meaning you're contributing to modern injustices by being an Average Joe punching in your time and not rallying to the streets.  For me: I believe this kind of abrasive attitude, tied to otherwise sympathetic cries against modern injustices, played into those riots to a great degree.

Maybe we do.  Just so we understand: I was trying to incorporate it within MLK's quote and the wider context.  Reaching international stations isn't the end-all to being "unheard."  When considering how previous eras implemented tools to make sure cries fall on deaf ears?  Seems like a night/day difference on the outset.  And although I'm with you on continued systemic problems, it'd be unfair to say that no efforts have been made.  If looking at New York (or perhaps limited to NYC), it seems like attention given to bail reform was a big deal to numerous people.  Its effectiveness is something I haven't dedicated much time on.  Even VGChartz's favorite leader, Mango Mussolini, can get something like The First Step Act Bill signed into law.  There are a plurality of different coalitions trying to move the needle forward in these ways.

Like that of the MPD officer arrests, maybe you'll bring up that these are band-aids of different sizes.  Okay.  But isn't this way more productive on the whole?  To tie this back into my initial frustration: it seems like your quasi-defeatist language at the beginning and the seismic redresses required could make it easier to excuse this kind of destructive behavior.  You are being perfectly measured.  I need to make that clear.  There's just something about the protectiveness that gets to me, as though taking a hard-line stance in delineating protests from riots means you're radioactive.

[About as pretty a bow I can make atm.  Due to my weekend plans, future responses may take longer & be more sporadic.]

Thank you for the clarification. I appreciate it and I do believe I was not fully understanding you with my original interpretation. With this clarification, I largely agree, and I too would like to clarify my own points and explain why I am making them.

Historically, support for a movement and for change can very much become defined not by the complete substance but instead by knee jerk value judgements regarding one aspect. An idea can be defined by an individual or a specific act, though the idea itself is entirely distinct. I have seen many similar reactions to the Black Lives Matter movement. In my last post in this thread I briefly spoke about someone tying their judgement of the movement to a few minute details within the organization (which does not represent the totality of the movement).

As such, I am somewhat sore on the idea of someone touting the indiscretions of the rioters. I feel such a line of argumentation begs the question "To what end is this relevant?" The all too common conclusion is what I have seen many say: I do not support the cause of BLM because I do not support the actions of some individuals within the movement. I thoroughly disdain line of reasoning. To allow the perpetuation of injustice because some minority of those who are victims of this injustice choose to express themselves in destructive ways, in my opinion, seems to be the same vile reasoning that many have used to justify or perpetuate racism throughout history.

I will readily admit, you have not expressed this conclusion. I am not arguing that you have, but simply that I don't see the relevance within these moral judgements and pro/con analyses. As previously stated, the riots exist as an symptom of injustice. To quote my earlier post:

"The damage that was done is terrible, but I don't think that weakens any of the voices demanding change within these broken systems. Riots are a reflection of a system that has failed. The damage that was done doesn't weaken these voices, they only add to the urgency of calls for change."

So, while I don't necessarily disagree with an argument stating that the riots were immoral, I do worry about both the intent and the effect of focusing on this aspect of this movement. It shifts the definition of the movement, justifies a lack of support and empowers those in power - be they in the media or in politics - to remain immobile on these issues. It provides an out, to avoid confronting injustice. So what good is done by shifting the focus of the discussion to the evils of riots?

One last point I would like to make is that again, I acknowledge that progress has been made, however if we maintain this pace, it will be decades or more, before we reach a suitable end point within the criminal justice system. So much work has yet to be done. The changes required are truly fundamental. As such, I question whether non-structural change really has any significant benefit. At times, it feels as if the improvement works primarily as placation, designed not to step towards justice, but to silence critics. As such, these minor changes may delay true justice. The majority may be satisfied with a few band-aids, leaving those truly suffering to fall completely unheard yet again. Still, I support the minor changes despite my reservations. That said, we cannot allow them to silence us, or our calls for foundational change. Again, to be clear, I support these changes - I support the First Step Bill, and I support reforms to the cash bail system - however, I will never move to lessen the voices of those who are still fighting for change until we have a system which provides true justice.



https://www.forbes.com/sites/lisettevoytko/2020/07/21/tucker-carlson-claims-new-york-times-will-reveal-where-he-livesinspiring-fans-to-dox-reporter/#416d57cc3643

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/jul/22/facebook-posts/new-york-times-hasnt-published-tucker-carlsons-add/

Tucker Carlson sicks his mob on a NYT reporter for something they never did in order to distract from the scandal of his head writer's racist, misogynist activities as well as Tucker's own recent sexual harassment allegations - both of which he's barely even acknowledged.



Runa216 said:
KLAMarine said:

Who's calling it political extremism?

"but the reality is that they are being targetted with increased rates and there are far more examples of black (men in particular) people being killed by cops despite them being a minority in the US"

>Or because of the greater reporting on bad interactions between police and black men, too many black men are more paranoid as a result when it comes to police thus interactions between black men and police are sabotaged from the outset. I'm sure most get nervous when interacting with police; for a black man, regularly confronted with tales of brutality, are reasonably more fearful on average than their lighter counterparts...

And police are human too. They get nervous too and they're trained to always be ready and when confronted with a nervous black man, more nervous than they're used to with other people, they might be put more on edge fearing the person they've detained or pulled over might be armed or perhaps could be concealing something incriminating in their car. I can't blame them though, things can go from 0 to 100 in the blink of an eye. Officer Riley Jarecki can tell you about that:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3FGcN2Rlig

"People like you are the reason it needs to be made clear now more than ever that systemic racism is a very real and very pervasive thing"

>I can't say I'm convinced. Please help convince me.

Seriously? Plenty of people have put in plenty of work to explain things and educate you on the matter. You've made it VERY clear you have no interest in learning, you just wanna be petulant about it and frustrate people into giving up so that you can,a in some twisted logic, 'prove' to yourself and others that it's not real. 

"Seriously? Plenty of people have put in plenty of work to explain things and educate you on the matter."

>I don't recall this ever happening... When was this?

Immersiveunreality said:
KLAMarine said:

Who's calling it political extremism?

"but the reality is that they are being targetted with increased rates and there are far more examples of black (men in particular) people being killed by cops despite them being a minority in the US"

>Or because of the greater reporting on bad interactions between police and black men, too many black men are more paranoid as a result when it comes to police thus interactions between black men and police are sabotaged from the outset. I'm sure most get nervous when interacting with police; for a black man, regularly confronted with tales of brutality, are reasonably more fearful on average than their lighter counterparts...

And police are human too. They get nervous too and they're trained to always be ready and when confronted with a nervous black man, more nervous than they're used to with other people, they might be put more on edge fearing the person they've detained or pulled over might be armed or perhaps could be concealing something incriminating in their car. I can't blame them though, things can go from 0 to 100 in the blink of an eye. Officer Riley Jarecki can tell you about that:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3FGcN2Rlig

"People like you are the reason it needs to be made clear now more than ever that systemic racism is a very real and very pervasive thing"

>I can't say I'm convinced. Please help convince me.

The cop in that vid did panic for sure,that's not the best behaviour.

Take cover and shoot tires and when the driver gets out she could have shot his legs or she could call for backup when he drove away after shooting the tires.

I wonder about the entry exam for police training and how they train them to behave under stress.

The fact that the suspect is armed and tried to kill the officer means that the most advisable thing for the officer to do is to kill the suspect IMMEDIATELY using the maximum amount of force possible. When a police officer is met with deadly force, they need to respond with deadlier force: that means completely unloading their gun until it's empty.

The officer could have shot at the suspect's legs but if the officer has a shot at the suspect's legs, that likely means the suspect has an angle on the officer's head. In addition, as long as the suspect isn't dead, the suspect can still pull a trigger. Shooting at the legs doesn't incapacitate a trigger finger: the suspect needed to die.

The officer did the right thing: she survived the ordeal and has guaranteed that a scumbag will never open fire on another person again.



Around the Network
KLAMarine said:
Runa216 said:

Seriously? Plenty of people have put in plenty of work to explain things and educate you on the matter. You've made it VERY clear you have no interest in learning, you just wanna be petulant about it and frustrate people into giving up so that you can,a in some twisted logic, 'prove' to yourself and others that it's not real. 

"Seriously? Plenty of people have put in plenty of work to explain things and educate you on the matter."

>I don't recall this ever happening... When was this?

Literally every response to you in this thread. We've tried explaining to you what the movement means, why it's called what it is, how it works, its operational goal is, and the nuance of why "AllLivesMatter" is a technically true statement but completely misses the point. We've given you anecdotes, examples, metaphors, and memes to help make it easier to understand, we're countered your ignorance with education, and we've tried to elaborate on why your stance on the matter, though probably at least somewhat sincere, is wholly misguided. 

If you refuse to acknowledge or respect ANY of those responses, that's on you. Neither I nor SpokenTruth nor anyone else in this thread is responsible for you if you're just going to resist and play the fool. You're presumably a grown-assed man with the stubborn ignorance of a teenager. 



I got it all, baby! 

PS4, Switch, WiiU, XBO, PC
Vita, 3DS, Android

Top 6 this generation: 
Bloodborne, Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice, God of War, The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild, Dark Souls III, Red Dead Redemption II

TallSilhouette said:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/lisettevoytko/2020/07/21/tucker-carlson-claims-new-york-times-will-reveal-where-he-livesinspiring-fans-to-dox-reporter/#416d57cc3643

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/jul/22/facebook-posts/new-york-times-hasnt-published-tucker-carlsons-add/

Tucker Carlson sicks his mob on a NYT reporter for something they never did in order to distract from the scandal of his head writer's racist, misogynist activities as well as Tucker's own recent sexual harassment allegations - both of which he's barely even acknowledged.

Yeah but we all know Carl Tuckerson (As well as Ben Shapiro, Alex Jones, Bill O'Reilly, Tomi Lahren , and many others) is a trash person. 



I got it all, baby! 

PS4, Switch, WiiU, XBO, PC
Vita, 3DS, Android

Top 6 this generation: 
Bloodborne, Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice, God of War, The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild, Dark Souls III, Red Dead Redemption II

TallSilhouette said:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/lisettevoytko/2020/07/21/tucker-carlson-claims-new-york-times-will-reveal-where-he-livesinspiring-fans-to-dox-reporter/#416d57cc3643

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/jul/22/facebook-posts/new-york-times-hasnt-published-tucker-carlsons-add/

Tucker Carlson sicks his mob on a NYT reporter for something they never did in order to distract from the scandal of his head writer's racist, misogynist activities as well as Tucker's own recent sexual harassment allegations - both of which he's barely even acknowledged.

Getting tired of these kind of videos,ugliest looking face they can find of the person on the thumbnail,a lot of assumptions and extremes.

This is like The Quartering(see youtube if you do not know him) but for the further leftists.

I would also like to add that i dislike Tucker Carlson.



KLAMarine said:
Runa216 said:

Seriously? Plenty of people have put in plenty of work to explain things and educate you on the matter. You've made it VERY clear you have no interest in learning, you just wanna be petulant about it and frustrate people into giving up so that you can,a in some twisted logic, 'prove' to yourself and others that it's not real. 

"Seriously? Plenty of people have put in plenty of work to explain things and educate you on the matter."

>I don't recall this ever happening... When was this?

Immersiveunreality said:

The cop in that vid did panic for sure,that's not the best behaviour.

Take cover and shoot tires and when the driver gets out she could have shot his legs or she could call for backup when he drove away after shooting the tires.

I wonder about the entry exam for police training and how they train them to behave under stress.

The fact that the suspect is armed and tried to kill the officer means that the most advisable thing for the officer to do is to kill the suspect IMMEDIATELY using the maximum amount of force possible. When a police officer is met with deadly force, they need to respond with deadlier force: that means completely unloading their gun until it's empty.

The officer could have shot at the suspect's legs but if the officer has a shot at the suspect's legs, that likely means the suspect has an angle on the officer's head. In addition, as long as the suspect isn't dead, the suspect can still pull a trigger. Shooting at the legs doesn't incapacitate a trigger finger: the suspect needed to die.

The officer did the right thing: she survived the ordeal and has guaranteed that a scumbag will never open fire on another person again.

She had all room to take cover ,shoot the tires and ask the driver to drop his gun and step out of the car while calling for backup herself but instead she firstly made herself vulnerable by going around the car again and then just unloads the whole gun.

This could have been handled better,but this kind of panicky behaviour seems to reflect on a lot of cops in the US.(lack of training?)



Immersiveunreality said:
TallSilhouette said:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/lisettevoytko/2020/07/21/tucker-carlson-claims-new-york-times-will-reveal-where-he-livesinspiring-fans-to-dox-reporter/#416d57cc3643

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/jul/22/facebook-posts/new-york-times-hasnt-published-tucker-carlsons-add/

Tucker Carlson sicks his mob on a NYT reporter for something they never did in order to distract from the scandal of his head writer's racist, misogynist activities as well as Tucker's own recent sexual harassment allegations - both of which he's barely even acknowledged.

Getting tired of these kind of videos,ugliest looking face they can find of the person on the thumbnail,a lot of assumptions and extremes.

This is like The Quartering(see youtube if you do not know him) but for the further leftists.

I would also like to add that i dislike Tucker Carlson.

No assuming the worst, have you even HEARD Carl Tuckerson speak? Dude's an absolute trash person scumbag. He deserves worse. 



I got it all, baby! 

PS4, Switch, WiiU, XBO, PC
Vita, 3DS, Android

Top 6 this generation: 
Bloodborne, Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice, God of War, The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild, Dark Souls III, Red Dead Redemption II