Unearthed audio of Tucker Carlson defending paedophilia etc.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Was prepared to come in here and throw Tucker under the bus, because the bastard deserves to be.

Was disappoited.

Basically, I don't see what the big deal is. He never defended paedophilia or anything of that nature and made a technically correct point. That's it. I really can't see what I am supposed to be offended at here and this is coming from someone who despises Tucker Carlson.

CARLSON: Look, just to make it absolutely clear. I am not defending underage marriage at all. I just don't think it's the same thing exactly as pulling a child from a bus stop and sexually assaulting that child.

CO-HOST: Yeah, it's -- you know what it is? It's much more planned out and plotted.

THE LOVE SPONGE: Yeah, it should be almost -- you almost should put a premeditation --

CARLSON: Wait, wait! Hold on a second. The rapist, in this case, has made a lifelong commitment to live and take care of the person, so it is a little different. I mean, let's me honest about it.

This is indefensible. He's saying "statutory rape is ok if you marry your victim". Sure, he says he's not defending underage marriage, but then he goes on and repeatedly does so over the course of the transcript.  That doesn't somehow absolve him, it just means that he's lying about what he's doing!

He also used some extremely misogynistic language.

[BlueSwan]

Was prepared to come in here and throw Tucker under the bus, because the bastard deserves to be.

Was disappoited.

Basically, I don't see what the big deal is. He never defended paedophilia or anything of that nature and made a technically correct point. That's it. I really can't see what I am supposed to be offended at here and this is coming from someone who despises Tucker Carlson.

CARLSON: Look, just to make it absolutely clear. I am not defending underage marriage at all. I just don't think it's the same thing exactly as pulling a child from a bus stop and sexually assaulting that child.

CO-HOST: Yeah, it's -- you know what it is? It's much more planned out and plotted.

THE LOVE SPONGE: Yeah, it should be almost -- you almost should put a premeditation --

CARLSON: Wait, wait! Hold on a second. The rapist, in this case, has made a lifelong commitment to live and take care of the person, so it is a little different. I mean, let's me honest about it.

This is indefensible. He's saying "statutory rape is ok if you marry your victim". Sure, he says he's not defending underage marriage, but then he goes on and repeatedly does so over the course of the transcript.  That doesn't somehow absolve him, it just means that he's lying about what he's doing!

No he isn't. He is saying that there is a difference between underage marriage and raping a strange underage person and he is right. He is also explicitly stating that he does not condone underage marriage. I'm sick of nuances leaving political discourse. Saying that X is worse than Y does not equal defending Y. Both things can be wrong without them being equally wrong.

[Ye We Can]

Was prepared to come in here and throw Tucker under the bus, because the bastard deserves to be.

Was disappoited.

Basically, I don't see what the big deal is. He never defended paedophilia or anything of that nature and made a technically correct point. That's it. I really can't see what I am supposed to be offended at here and this is coming from someone who despises Tucker Carlson.

CARLSON: Look, just to make it absolutely clear. I am not defending underage marriage at all. I just don't think it's the same thing exactly as pulling a child from a bus stop and sexually assaulting that child.

CO-HOST: Yeah, it's -- you know what it is? It's much more planned out and plotted.

THE LOVE SPONGE: Yeah, it should be almost -- you almost should put a premeditation --

CARLSON: Wait, wait! Hold on a second. The rapist, in this case, has made a lifelong commitment to live and take care of the person, so it is a little different. I mean, let's me honest about it.

This is indefensible. He's saying "statutory rape is ok if you marry your victim". Sure, he says he's not defending underage marriage, but then he goes on and repeatedly does so over the course of the transcript.  That doesn't somehow absolve him, it just means that he's lying about what he's doing!

No he isn't. He is saying that there is a difference between underage marriage and raping a strange underage person and he is right. He is also explicitly stating that he does not condone underage marriage. I'm sick of nuances leaving political discourse. Saying that X is worse than Y does not equal defending Y. Both things can be wrong without them being equally wrong.

This, well said

[Slow Learner]

defending a guy who recorded himself raping a 12 year old is just a bit ol joke

[emailking]

I don't know what came before the snippet of the conversation in the article. But in that snippet he says he's not defending it and that he's against it. The only sense in which he's "defending" it is that he said it's not as bad as something else.

[Koharu]

If you think the majority of girls getting married at 16 truly want to be married to the person they're being married off to, I've got some ocean-side property to sell you up here in Wisconsin.

Child marriages especially over the last 20 years, are ones forced by families with various motives, whether it be due to a child's conception, religious leanings, or various other "reasons." These young women are being forced into relationships that are harmful for them, and while the "spouse" might be required to provide food and shelter, that doesn't make it "better" than any other type of pedophelia. In fact, the abuse that young women often experience when forced into (or 'talked into') marriage at such a young age is absolutely reprehensible.

Neither is better or worse. They are both traumatic and disgusting, and trying to say that one is "better" than the other is disgusting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_marriage_in_the_United_States

So, while he perhaps wasn't straight-up defending it, it's still disgusting to imply that there's less injury or something when it happens to involve a magical piece of paper that the girl likely didn't choose on her own.

[BlueSwan]

Could we also not call people who are sexually attracted to 16 year olds pedophiles, please?

A pedophile in medical/psychiatric terms is someone who is sexually attracted to prepubescent kids, not to 16 year olds who in any biological sense are adults, if not in a mental sense.

[Koharu]

Could we also not call people who are sexually attracted to 16 year olds pedophiles, please?

A pedophile in medical/psychiatric terms is someone who is sexually attracted to prepubescent kids, not to 16 year olds who in any biological sense are adults, if not in a mental sense.

Child marriages also happen with children younger than puberty. Not as commonly now, thanks to newer laws, but it still happens. Statutory rape is also still a thing, and that applies in these situations (obviously this is not a discussion about children of the same age marrying, which is a different issue). It may not be straight-up pedophilia, but taking advantage of a minor, whether it be a prepubescent one or not, is disgusting, and the trauma associated with child marriage is real. Neither it nor "normal" pedophilia is acceptable, and pretending one is less worse than the other, as if these things can be rated, is really just awful. A traumatized and abused young adult or child is a traumatized and abused young adult who will be dealing with the abuse and fallout for the rest of their life. In the case of children married to adults, it's possible they may have to endure the rape and abuse for years before they have the means and self-esteem to escape, if they are able to.

So, yeah, maybe young women being married off after their breasts grow in aren't targets of pedophilia in the strictest "medical" sense, but it's still disgusting, and trying to excuse it in any way is just, well, like I said earlier: 🤮🤮🤮

[Boobs]

Could we also not call people who are sexually attracted to 16 year olds pedophiles, please?

A pedophile in medical/psychiatric terms is someone who is sexually attracted to prepubescent kids, not to 16 year olds who in any biological sense are adults, if not in a mental sense.

[darklordoftech]

Could we also not call people who are sexually attracted to 16 year olds pedophiles, please?

A pedophile in medical/psychiatric terms is someone who is sexually attracted to prepubescent kids, not to 16 year olds who in any biological sense are adults, if not in a mental sense.

At the end of the day, Jeffs was keeping the offspring of his cult in captivity. Also, Carlson didn't say, "16 is old enough", but rather said, "It's ok to rape someone if you financially support them."

[RI]

The single-best piece of advice ever given to me as a young adult has yet to let me down or prove me wrong: "never trust anybody who wears a bow-tie".

Poor Ken Rosenthal

[Xeuma]

Could we also not call people who are sexually attracted to 16 year olds pedophiles, please?

A pedophile in medical/psychiatric terms is someone who is sexually attracted to prepubescent kids, not to 16 year olds who in any biological sense are adults, if not in a mental sense.

16 year olds are most definitely not adults mentally. They do not have good decision-making skills as a matter of biology.

Also, I always get creeped out by comments like this. It feels like defense of pedophilia without outright saying it.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Could we also not call people who are sexually attracted to 16 year olds pedophiles, please?

A pedophile in medical/psychiatric terms is someone who is sexually attracted to prepubescent kids, not to 16 year olds who in any biological sense are adults, if not in a mental sense.

16 year olds are most definitely not adults mentally. They do not have good decision-making skills as a matter of biology.

Also, I always get creeped out by comments like this. It feels like defense of pedophilia without outright saying it.

This

[emailking]

Could we also not call people who are sexually attracted to 16 year olds pedophiles, please?

A pedophile in medical/psychiatric terms is someone who is sexually attracted to prepubescent kids, not to 16 year olds who in any biological sense are adults, if not in a mental sense.

16 year olds are most definitely not adults mentally. They do not have good decision-making skills as a matter of biology.

Also, I always get creeped out by comments like this. It feels like defense of pedophilia without outright saying it.

Does it creep you out that the age of consent is 16 in your state? You guys have decided 16 year olds can consent to sex.

Being attracted to a 16 year old does not imply pedophilia, either as a medical or legal matter, even if it creeps you out. Ephebophilia is the term for that, and it has a different term because it's a very different phenomenon, with different laws surrounding it as a result.

[Xeuma]

Could we also not call people who are sexually attracted to 16 year olds pedophiles, please?

A pedophile in medical/psychiatric terms is someone who is sexually attracted to prepubescent kids, not to 16 year olds who in any biological sense are adults, if not in a mental sense.

16 year olds are most definitely not adults mentally. They do not have good decision-making skills as a matter of biology.

Also, I always get creeped out by comments like this. It feels like defense of pedophilia without outright saying it.

Does it creep you out that the age of consent is 16 in your state? You guys have decided 16 year olds can consent to sex.

Being attracted to a 16 year old does not imply pedophilia, either as a medical or legal matter, even if it creeps you out. Ephebophilia is the term for that, and it has a different term because it's a very different phenomenon, with different laws surrounding it as a result.

No the age of consent being 16 seems perfectly normal to me. What's creepy is when teenagers are pursued sexually by people twice their age, regardless of its legality.

[emailking]

No the age of consent being 16 seems perfectly normal to me. What's creepy is when teenagers are pursued sexually by people twice their age, regardless of its legality.

Most of those people aren't also pursuing pre-pubescent children, which is a different kind of evil altogether, and what most people think of when they think of pedophiles. I believe that's what BlueSwan was getting at with the clarification.

[KaiserDave]

Yeah at the Warren Jeffs stuff this obviously becomes just....awful.

[darklordoftech]

Carlson called Britney Spears "a whore" in the same interview. Funny how he suddenly becomes a prude when a woman wants sex.

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

Was prepared to come in here and throw Tucker under the bus, because the bastard deserves to be.

Was disappoited.

Basically, I don't see what the big deal is. He never defended paedophilia or anything of that nature and made a technically correct point. That's it. I really can't see what I am supposed to be offended at here and this is coming from someone who despises Tucker Carlson.

CARLSON: Look, just to make it absolutely clear. I am not defending underage marriage at all. I just don't think it's the same thing exactly as pulling a child from a bus stop and sexually assaulting that child.

CO-HOST: Yeah, it's -- you know what it is? It's much more planned out and plotted.

THE LOVE SPONGE: Yeah, it should be almost -- you almost should put a premeditation --

CARLSON: Wait, wait! Hold on a second. The rapist, in this case, has made a lifelong commitment to live and take care of the person, so it is a little different. I mean, let's me honest about it.

This is indefensible. He's saying "statutory rape is ok if you marry your victim". Sure, he says he's not defending underage marriage, but then he goes on and repeatedly does so over the course of the transcript.  That doesn't somehow absolve him, it just means that he's lying about what he's doing!

No he isn't. He is saying that there is a difference between underage marriage and raping a strange underage person and he is right. He is also explicitly stating that he does not condone underage marriage. I'm sick of nuances leaving political discourse. Saying that X is worse than Y does not equal defending Y. Both things can be wrong without them being equally wrong.

He is technically right, but it's in the context of defending Warren Jeffs.  That's the creepy part.  That's a nuance that's a bit hard to take, tbh.

[Cory]

Was prepared to come in here and throw Tucker under the bus, because the bastard deserves to be.

Was disappoited.

Basically, I don't see what the big deal is. He never defended paedophilia or anything of that nature and made a technically correct point. That's it. I really can't see what I am supposed to be offended at here and this is coming from someone who despises Tucker Carlson.

CARLSON: Look, just to make it absolutely clear. I am not defending underage marriage at all. I just don't think it's the same thing exactly as pulling a child from a bus stop and sexually assaulting that child.

CO-HOST: Yeah, it's -- you know what it is? It's much more planned out and plotted.

THE LOVE SPONGE: Yeah, it should be almost -- you almost should put a premeditation --

CARLSON: Wait, wait! Hold on a second. The rapist, in this case, has made a lifelong commitment to live and take care of the person, so it is a little different. I mean, let's me honest about it.

This is indefensible. He's saying "statutory rape is ok if you marry your victim". Sure, he says he's not defending underage marriage, but then he goes on and repeatedly does so over the course of the transcript.  That doesn't somehow absolve him, it just means that he's lying about what he's doing!

No he isn't. He is saying that there is a difference between underage marriage and raping a strange underage person and he is right. He is also explicitly stating that he does not condone underage marriage. I'm sick of nuances leaving political discourse. Saying that X is worse than Y does not equal defending Y. Both things can be wrong without them being equally wrong.

He is technically right, but it's in the context of defending Warren Jeffs.  That's the creepy part.  That's a nuance that's a bit hard to take, tbh.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

But wait, there's more:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts-entertainment/2019/03/12/new-tucker-carlson-audio-released-this-time-using-racist-homophobic-language/?utm_term=.1239c2817b36

[BlueSwan]

Could we also not call people who are sexually attracted to 16 year olds pedophiles, please?

A pedophile in medical/psychiatric terms is someone who is sexually attracted to prepubescent kids, not to 16 year olds who in any biological sense are adults, if not in a mental sense.

16 year olds are most definitely not adults mentally. They do not have good decision-making skills as a matter of biology.

Also, I always get creeped out by comments like this. It feels like defense of pedophilia without outright saying it.

It is the exact opposite. Calling a 20-year old who is attracted to a 16-year old a "pedophile" completely trivializes pedophilia and the victims of it.

Also, as I stated earlier in the thread, it really annoys me how nuances have totally left the political discourse. Pedophilia is a medical term for someone who is attracted to pre-pubescent children, period. Someone who is attracted to a young adult (in the biological sense) is not a pedophile. This statement in itself holds no moral judgment of either, it is simply a matter of definition.

[136or142]

But wait, there's more:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts-entertainment/2019/03/12/new-tucker-carlson-audio-released-this-time-using-racist-homophobic-language/?utm_term=.1239c2817b36

This was an additional part of that first discussion:  

CARLSON: He's not accused of touching anybody; he is accused of facilitating a marriage between a 16-year-old girl and a 27-year-old man. That's the accusation. That's what they're calling felony rape. [crosstalk] That's bullsh**t. I'm sorry. Now this guy may be [crosstalk], may be a child rapist. I'm just telling you that arranging a marriage between a 16-year-old and a 27-year-old is not the same as pulling a stranger off the street and raping her. That's bullsh**t.

CO-HOST: Yeah, that's what Warren Jeffs' in prison for. He's not in prison for polygamy, he's in prison for child rape.

TUCKER CARLSON: Well, actually, he's not in prison for that. He didn’t -- Warren Jeffs didn't marry underaged girls, actually.

CO-HOST: No, he's in prison for facilitation of child rape.

CARLSON: Whatever the hell that means.

CO-HOST: That means that --

CARLSON: He's in prison because he's weird and unpopular and he has a different lifestyle that other people find creepy.

CO-HOST: No, he is an accessory to the rape of children. That is a felony and a serious one at that.

Regarding the '16 year old girl.'
Carlson is referring to the charges filed against Jeffs five months earlier in state court in St. George. He was charged with two first-degree felony counts of rape as an accomplice. The victim was actually a 14-year-old girl, who has since identified herself as Elissa Wall. The groom was her 19-year-old cousin.

So, she was 14 and not 16, and, given Tucker Carlson's history of making arguments using half-truths, I'm certainly not going to give him the benefit of the doubt that he didn't know she was really 14 at the time

Tucker Carlson is a sick f...

[Badger]

Carlson called Britney Spears "a whore" in the same interview. Funny how he suddenly becomes a prude when a woman wants sex.

[Beet]

CARLSON: Iraq is a crappy place filled with a bunch of, you know, semiliterate primitive monkeys -- that’s why it wasn't worth invading.

CARLSON: I hate the war. You know, I'm not defending the war in any way, but I just have zero sympathy for them or their culture. A culture where people just don't use toilet paper or forks.

CO-HOST: And the way they treat women -- you know, I agree with you. Their culture is -- but you’re in their homeland, and you’re over there as an American, who they hate, and they want nothing more than the Americans off of their soil, so they’re not going to play games.

CARLSON: The second we -- they can just shut the  up and obey, is my view. And, you know, the second we leave, they’re going to be calling for us to return because they can’t govern themselves.

https://www.mediamatters.org/research/2019/03/11/unearthed-audio-shows-tucker-carlson-using-white-nationalist-rhetoric-and-making-racist-remarks/223105

Carlson's sage advice for the Obama 2008 campaign:

If there were a Democrat to come out in the 2008 election and say, “You know what the problem is? It’s Islamic extremism. It's not terror, it's not some, you know, indefinable threat out there. It's these lunatic Muslims who are behaving like animals, and I'm going to kill as many of them as I can if you elect me.” If a Democrat were to say that, he would be elected king, OK?

Yeah, but I think he'd need to say, "Look, I'm a bigot. OK, I'm a bigot. I don't like Islamic extremists. Like if you are really heavily into Islam, I really -- I'm sorry, I just don't -- I don’t care for you that much

CO-HOST: So, basically we need a racist president. “We need to get these Mexicans out of here, and the Islam. Let’s kill all the Muslims.”

CARLSON: Well, I don’t think --

CO-HOST: We need that.

CARLSON: I -- you know, I think that you're onto something