Tucker Carlson is using doublespeak

Yeeeaaaaahhhhhh...you left out the context of that statement.

No, I didn’t.

Really?
Do, tell ...
I see ZERO context.
Do you even know what context is?

Please, provide it. The burden of proof is on you.

No. The burden is on you. You posted the meme, not I.
silly snot

Except, you’re the one making the claim that it is out of context. So it is on you, not me.

I didn't say it is out of context.
What I said was you have provided ZERO context.
Back on you, dweeb.

Okay, I’ll bite. I’ve posted the source of the quote. Feel free to prove it’s out of context! Which, ya know, what I’m asking you to do or you can continue to play the game of “no u”

You’re not fooling anyone and you’re certainly not convincing me.

You gave ME a link. Great!! Good for you!
Now, all you have to do is incorporate it into your meme so everyone can see it, not just I. After all, you are trying to convince everyone, aren't you?

Except for the fact you can’t edit memes lol

https://www.foxnews.com/transcript/tucker-biden-administration-deems-censorship-applicable-to-private-speech

And why don't you let the readers or viewers of information decide if what they are reading or viewing is true or not. Stop treating citizens as if they're ignorant children.

Because that is not how facts work.

If you want people to stop treating you like children, then don’t act like children.

That is exactly how facts work.
People analyze the "facts" to determine if they are indeed "facts".
You guys are trying to change the meaning of everything....up is down, left is right, good is bad...

Tucker Carlson is literally disagreeing with the very definition of misinformation. That is doublespeak. What guys do I belong to? I’m a Republican. Just because I call out a shithead like Carlson doesn’t make me less of one.

Facts are simply facts. Individuals do not determine if they are or not otherwise everyone would have a conflicting view of what is and isn’t reality. Arguably, that is precisely what is going on right now.

You guys, trumpers, talk about the elite dividing us yet you willfully engage with anyone who disagrees with you and assume that they must not adhere fully to your political ideology and are therefore, somehow, your enemy.

Well, us arguing over a literal definition, a literal FACT, mind you, that misinformation is indeed false or inaccurate information is exactly what elitist would want us to argue rather than actually saying, “it’s not misinformation” which is what YOU should be saying.

Instead, YOU are trying to change the meaning of everything....up is down, left is right, good is bad...

Textbook projection.

Nonsense.
Yes, individuals do determine whether or not the facts provided bear up to scrutiny.

Yeah, but if you’re saying we should put out conflicting information and saying everyone should decide which information is true or not, then you’re basically making the argument of everyone gets a trophy at a sporting event. It’s a very liberal ideology, and one I’m just not keen of adapting. Your alternative facts are either right or wrong, or my facts are right or wrong.

We cannot continue as a society if we cannot have a foundation of what it is true and what is not. We must simply disagree with opinions and not facts. And when we blur that line, we endanger ourselves and give ammunition to those who would have us fail.

I did not say that.
What I said was provide the context, so that individuals can weigh the evidence within the proper context.

Let's try this...
George Floyd died while on drugs.

That is a fact. Right?
But, where is the context?

So, now I tell you he died, while on drugs and resisting arrest.
But, wait.... there's more context.

So, now, I include that while resisting arrest, he collapsed and the cops put hand cuffs on him and held him down on the ground with a knee on his back and neck. As a consequence, Floyd died while in custody of the police.

Now, having the context, you can determine in your own mind what the truth is.

What individuals?

Your audience.
The people I assume that you hope to read your meme.
Those individuals, remember them?
Seriously, you can't possibly be that obtuse, can you?

“Nonsense.
Pure drivel.

flagmerryprankster0 ups, <1h
And I stand corrected...you actually are that obtuse.
lol“

If I am obtuse for anything, it would be thinking that engaging with you would render anything fruitful. However, your stubbornness will not dissuade me from continuing with you not anyone else.

Ignorance whether willful or not only begets frustration. And frustrated people find it difficult to think or discuss anything rationally.

So you go on taking out your frustrations on me. I do not hold it against you. I shall turn the other cheek whilst you only make a fool of yourself.

It is no skin off my nose.

And I hope, one day, you crawl out of that pit you’re wallowing in and see yourself for what you are and what more you could be.

Until you actually have something worth arguing, I shall disengage.

Nonetheless, thank you for the chat.

So, obviously, you don't even know what "obtuse" means.
It figures, you didn't even know what "context" meant until we had our "chat".
Have a better day.

Oh, BTW, you are right..."Ignorance whether willful or not only begets frustration. And frustrated people find it difficult to think or discuss anything rationally".

You certainly proved that, didn't you?
LOL

Lol, audiences do not determine facts.

Experts, investigators, and reputable sources do. I’m not the news either. But I am certainly going to point out when Tucker Carlson is wrong about what misinformation is.

He can say the left is misusing it, that’s fine! That may be true! But changing it’s definition to suit his personal or ideological agenda is what Orwell warned us about.

If Carlson WAS solely accusing the left of that, that would be fine but he very literally lied about what misinformation is supposed to be.

That is not an opinion, it’s fact regardless of the context.

Nonsense.
Pure drivel.

And I stand corrected...you actually are that obtuse.
lol

I know thinking is hard..

What your media overlords have labeled as “misinformation” has turned out to be factually true. Therefore, Carlson’s claim is also true.

Not really.

People can can mislabel something as misinformation, true, but it is not very often that something once called misinformation has turned out to be true.

Thinking also requires one to know when they are wrong. Tucker is simply wrong. I’m not saying he is always wrong but this is very wrong. It’s the basic definition of misinformation. If he had said a few things that have been mislabeled as misinformation turned out to be true, he would be partially correct. But unfortunately, either his best writer was out or he misspoke.

Remember when the virus origin in Wuhan was misinformation?

Remember when Hunters laptop was Russian disinformation / misinformation?

Remember when they called the vaccine safe and saying otherwise was misinformation?

Remember when the election fraud was impossible and that was nothing more than misinformation?

Remember when they said Russia put bounties on US troops and saying otherwise was misinformation?

Need I go on?

Counterpoint, it’s location of origin was not disputed but rather the politically correct assessment of what to call the virus. It is uncommon in science to use the point of origin to label the virus because new evidence can always come to light.

In fact, Spain was not the origin of Spanish Flu. The reason why it is called that is because the first researchers in Spain concluded that, globally, we were experiencing a much deadlier virus than the rest of the world originally understood. It is common for people and places to take credit for discovery of something rather than to label it after the origin.

From what I understand, parts of the Hunter laptop story is still misinformation.

They’ve been very upfront about the effects of the vaccine and released rigorous mandates about who should and should not take the vaccine and what they should do during and after their first shot. For the most part, the vaccine is still 99% safe apart from those very few who are ineligible to take it.

Election fraud is possible. Fraud on the scale you Trump Supporters are saying is impossible. Hence why Biden is still President. And he, or Harris, will remain so until at least 2024.

The Russian bounties was misinformation. No one said saying otherwise was misinformation.

If someone misused the term misinformation, that doesn’t allow the opposition to change it’s very definition. That’s doublespeak.

At this point - if it’s labeled as misinformation by the MSM I’m nearly sure it has strong elements of truth.

That’s close to saying “if it’s misinformation by MSM, then I don’t think it actually is”

Which is fair.

But generally, factually, misinformation means fake news.

As it should - but it doesn’t. As stated by Carlson.

Unfortunately, he also tried to change the definition rather than simply deny it’s overuse so, he too engaged in misinformation ironically with the very definition of the word.