The conservatives who worship her are the ones with the least exposure to her. I watch a lot of Daily Wire and her presence was extremely low. I was in a discussion with my father who is a ~75 year old Fox News/WSJ/Newsmax consumer about how black people were a lost cause for Republicans and he kind of angrily retorted something about "we have Candace Owens." I'm sure he'd seen 10 minutes combined of Candace Owens just delivering her snappy sound bites. The reality is delivering conservative messaging with a black face is something people want and will pay for.
It's a question Shapiro himself should be addressing. And, I've heard him mildly address it a few times. I too want to live in that world where we can all have this discussion in the open. I think that we get closer to that world by avoiding the traps until we can rebuild the culture into one that can handle it.
I agree with this take 100% except that I think as a practical political matter it has only negative value. I think it is an interesting question though I favor more grounded explanations that look at the demographic characteristics of Jewish people (income, education, intelligence, "minority status", professions) that already highly correlate with leftism/technocratic thinking. Add to that their own normal racial bigotry/nepotism and a, in some ways justifiable, paranoia of nationalism (outside Jewish nationalism, and the hypocrisy of Jewish people on these issues is dreadful but not unique). I think that makes Jewish people poor fellow citizens but extraordinary conspiracy theories require extraordinary evidence, particularly in light of more (IMO) reasonable explanations.
The question then is how "naming the Jew" moves the needle in any positive direction in a society and culture that is unready to have even more basic discussions regarding leftism than that (Walsh can't get people to stop mutilating their own children in a completely insane scheme to turn them into a different gender). All it does is play directly into a trap/narrative the enemies of the right have created. It allows the vast majority of people to dismiss everything you have to say and for the enemies of the right to smear and censor.
Your question isn't valid it's absurdly obtuse with a sprinkle of im14andverysmart. He gets paid by the Daily Wire. He gets paid by ad revenue from advertisers on his show. He makes additional money for speaking and selling books the value of which increases due to his visibility from the podcast. He's not doing the show for free nor did he (again, to a person of normal functioning) suggest that. You get to watch it without having to go through the Daily Wire paywall which, in normal parlance, qualifies as free.
We didn't have Dominion voting machines back then.
I agree with a lot of what you're saying. But, this Dominion deal, it's not a good look for us. It's kind of like, in current year, pretending that Trump actually got pissed on by Russian prostitutes. This is a conspiracy theory that not only failed to materialize but was so wrong it has been used to shut down all criticism of election procedures.
If you read pages 18-25 of the Brief (31-38 of the PDF), they suggest that they didn't want to cross Trump and that because Fox News had pissed off their viewers by calling states early for Biden, they were worried that they weren't giving their viewers what they want to hear. I think Tucker was trying to let people make up their minds about the accusations but he didn't believe them. But, yeah, the evidence in these communications is quite bad and would look even worse through examination in court.
E-mails and text messages.
In another text exchange a few days later, as stated in the legal filing, Carlson repeated his concerns to Ingraham, writing that “Sidney Powell is lying by the way. I caught her. It’s insane.” Ingraham replied, “Sidney is a complete nut. No one will work with her. Ditto with Rudy.” Carlson responded, “It’s unbelievably offensive to me. Our viewers are good people and they believe it.”
Here is Dominion's brief in support of their motion for summary judgment that includes the communications they were relying on (although not the exhibits themselves):
I don't know if that archive link actually lets you go through the PDF, but here is the direct link: https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/redacted-documents-in-dominion-fox-news-case/dca5e3880422426f/full.pdf
The straight legal answer is that it matters that the Fox News personnel didn't believe the Dominion allegations but aired them anyway. What makes proving defamation so difficult, particularly in the case of matters of public interest, is that it requires actual malice or reckless disregard for the truth. Without that evidence that the Fox News personnel didn't believe Sydney Powell and her allegations, it's a near slam dunk case for Fox to say they were just covering all sides.
My guess with the lawsuit is they were told by a judge or someone in power that they were going to lose and that it would be in their best interest to settle without going to discovery in court and revealing anything more about Dominion. Otherwise, why settle? It's not about legal fees when the settlement is 3/4 billion. Hell the money you save by simply not making the payment NOW is worth it.
They already had discovery -- that's where the internal communications from Fox News personnel were produced. Having reviewed discovery from Dominion, the judge stated it "is crystal clear that none of the statements relating to Dominion about the 2020 election are true." It's very possible they still win. But, it would have been a Delaware jury and a giant spectacle with their stars being brought in to testify. It also works for their general transition from Trump.
There are 2 relevant points. The first is that there is a lot of ideological sorting going on with these moves. For instance, at least as of a few years ago (I haven't seen anything since) there were more Democrat voting native born Texans by percentage than transplants. Enough to have a Senator Beto but for the non-native Texans voting against him. The second would be that even a lot of these coastal Republicans (of which there are huge numbers) are more libertarian neo-con types. They do bring softer culture stances that then help create more of the spreading leftism we see across the country.
She's somewhat correct. It's obvious that many demoralized, insecure white boys do get drawn into transgenderism because it gives them a victim class identity to build their lives around. That's certainly the most reasonable interpretation for why so many white girls identify as LGBT also. It's just bizarre how these female bigots (who themselves irrationally identify as a victim class and created the whole movement) somehow blame men for this when the only people not explicitly voting for and pushing this shit in vast majorities are white men.
It's anti-truth. We are basically fully in a situation where if you can call something racist, sexist, or anti-LGBT+ (which to them means anything not explicitly pro-minority, pro-woman, pro-LGBT+) then you can suppress that information in broad daylight. This goes for science, news, and anything else. And, very few people really give a shit.
Don't go full Imp. These girls are not careful students of Valerie Solanas or 70's feminist writings. They aren't knowingly attempting to extinguish men. This kind of thing has been going on for a long time. Girls get obsessed by ideas about relationships and romance. As for answering the question, I find a lot of the social-based explanations here plausible. I'm sure it feels sophisticated and cosmopolitan because that's how it is depicted in media. They also seem to find the gay affect intensely amusing the way guys tend to find certain types of things funny. Valerie Solanas is not driving any of this.
Your comment here is counter to your comment below. This person wasn't crazy because they were trans. She was trans because she was crazy. Step one is to not turn more people trans who are just suffering from other mental illnesses.
Reddit (/r/news) crushing it as usual.
I don't agree with your take on women broadly, but focusing on banning mentally ill men from women's sports is a massive mistake. It reinforces this "we are only allowed to address cultural issues as long as it benefits women who are simultaneously driving these problems," paradigm. It also provides some of the cleanest, effective visuals to combat the cognitive dissonance the left loves to foster on these kinds of issues.
They are forced by Title IX which is a long standing piece of "equity" over equality legislation that, because it helps women, is not controversial with most people even on the right. In case people were wondering where the Overton Window/power structure of leftism lies.
I don't think this is about China for them. TikTok is mainlining left wing garbage into children and teenagers. They absolutely love any way to get their indoctrination into young people. Even Jamaal Bowman talking about it admitted it by defending TIkTok on the basis that it is "engaging young people in the democratic process." Biden has had TikTok influencers come to the White House. They were brought in to learn the correct narratives on things like COVID, Ukraine, and you can guess what else and then they push it out to their followers.
His argument is more interesting than that because imagine you left your computer at the repair shop and then the repair shop takes ownership. But, you have your bank account information on the computer. That doesn't mean the repair shop can misuse the bank account information or publish your information in the newspaper. Obviously, that's a stronger case than Hunter's but it's a similar idea. He's saying "Okay, it's their laptop now. They can install Minecraft or use it for porn or whatever but that doesn't give them the right to disclose all of my private information to the New York Post."
That said, the chutzpah for him to even bring this case where he can then be deposed says a lot about the life this guy has lead.
It's a good point. But, I don't see any reason to believe that their migrant culture survives against Western decadence for more than a generation or two. They secularized what was once a religious country already. Plus, these people all vote for the very people who push this shit and they don't seem to realize it. They don't realize how much government is responsible for pushing and funding this shit and the media helps. Drag Queen story hour is in part just a money making operation to siphon taxpayer funds to these degenerates.
His point wasn't that Candace Owens is the only black conservative but that she signaled a shift in black people more broadly joining the conservative movement/changing their voting behavior (the promises of her BLEXIT nonsense).
EDIT: I'd compare it to how some executives desperately grab on to the idea that you can take something that fundamentally appeals to men/boys and tweak it to bring in women/girls without ruining the original. It's an intoxicating idea just like the idea of black people not voting 85%+ for Democrats.