Remember when Tucker Carlson defended a teacher who gave a lap dance to her 15-year-old student?

[Schiff for Senate]

"I can excuse pedophilia, but I draw the line at LGBT+ people existing"

Anyway,

It's always projection.

To be sure, he’s not just excusing pedophilia/pervertedness, but he’s actually defending it.


Not that I’m surprised. Tucker and his crew, for all their lambasting ‘groomers’ (aka people who support and respect LGBT people), they actually support real groomers. It’s disgusting, sickening, extremely hypocritical, and it won’t cost him one viewer (they’ll all insist they’re against “the groomers,” and continue listening to the guy who’s actually defended real groomer teachers).

[Schiff for Senate]

Lmao they are making this about gay people when it literally wasn't. Yes, calling people you don't like a fascist is ok but when you call people you don't like another word you cry. If i said conservatives are groomers, my post would not have been deleted. The double standard is real

>"LGBTQ people are groomers"

>"This isn't about gay people"

Pick one.

why ignore the liberal part as if im singling out lgbt people.

You're dodging the question.

not dodging. Yall are singling them out like i made it about them

'Liberals and LGBTQ people'

Not just liberals, but specifically including LGBTQ people, regardless of political affiliation.

Ok so i didn't single one group out. Named multiple. Made it seem like it's about lgbts. Not what i did

You still said you believe LGBTQ people are groomers.

Ok. And?

What evidence do you have to back up the claim that 10-30 million Americans are actively engaged in a plot to groom children?

He’s from the Q party (and the party of the Big Lie). If you expect any evidence at all - and not just baseless and outrageous conspiracy theory claims - I’m afraid you’re going to be disappointed.

[Schiff for Senate]

"I think LGBTQ people are groomers but it's just, like, my opinion bro lol" is on more or less on the same level as "I think Mexicans are lazy but it's just, like, my opinion bro lol".

You can make the claim if you REALLY want to, but it's an insanely stupid idea to do so unless you're bringing the receipts. A certain somebody who shouldn't be named is going to end up infracted, rightfully so, and then whine and whine and whine about it.

No, the former is much worse, and (well-intentioned though you are) you’re drawing a false equivalency. Calling somebody lazy is much, much less serious and severe than calling them a groomer and sexual predator.

[Schiff for Senate]

If you want to say neither should be allowed, fine.

I'm maybe in the minority but I'm not 100% okay with this. People should be able to accurately or semi-accurately describe people using adjectives and labels on this forum. If somebody is a Republican and you call them a fascist, that might be a little too far, but if they're a Republican cheering on people who want to overturn democratic election results, calling them a fascist should absolutely be allowed because that's an accurate description. I would prefer if the moderators of this forum refrain from turning it into a safe space for anti-democracy insurrectionists.

When and if Schumer, Newsom and Tlaib start advocating for overturning election results, it should also be okay to call the red avatars that cheer them on fascists as well.

Ok fascist

Trolling doesn't suit you very well.

Its not trolling to say people who believe that tens of millions of people who support a different party then them are fascists. Saying you can't vote for the main opposition party without being a terrorist or a traitor is authoritarianism 101 and these people cannot seriously claim they care about democracy.

A party that says election results it does not like are illegitimate, is fascist. A party that literally tries to install a dictator after he loses a fair, democratic elevation, is a fascist party. A party that has tried to make it harder to vote for people who are likely to vote against them - is a fascist party.

[Schiff for Senate]

What the hell happened to this thread?

And yes, like it or not, Tucker is right that this is the absolute dream of many a teenage boy.

It’s still grooming and statutory rape. 15- and 16-year-olds want to have sex with attractive teachers. Does that mean they SHOULD, or that it’s at all right for teachers to do so? What the teachers are doing is still grooming and statutory rape, and it’s creepy and wrong. The teacher knows what she’s doing is highly inappropriate and immoral, taking advantage of a hormonal, immature underage teenager who is also her student. And Tucker is defending it. I shouldn’t have to explain to you why, even if the students think they’d like to, it’s wrong for teachers to have sex like this with underage students. Also suspect that, we’re the genders of the teacher and student flipped, you wouldn’t try to say something like this.

[Schiff for Senate]

When news comes out about some young teacher sleeping with one of her students, every normal male's reaction is "Where were these teachers when I was in high school?" Tucker is popular because he says what we think.

Are you in any way implying that gay or asexual men are not “normal men??” /s

[Schiff for Senate]

When news comes out about some young teacher sleeping with one of her students, every normal male's reaction is "Where were these teachers when I was in high school?" Tucker is popular because he says what we think.

Are you in any way implying that gay or asexual men are not “normal men??” /s

Please do not get offended on other people's behalf, we all know exactly what he means and I at least don't have such a thin skin I'm gonna get all weepy over it

Plus, abnormal =/= bad. Something like 95% of men are straight. Obviously, that makes it normal. That does not mean being gay is bad.

Yeah, I was being sarcastic (hence the "/s"). Relax.