This week, there's a valuable lesson on the importance of free speech from a controversial historian, Darryl Cooper, and others. Is there such as thing as misinformation and does it matter?
It's a bit misleading to say that all Tucker Carlson did was give Cooper a "forum," and that's what he's being criticized for.
He called him "maybe" the "most honest popular historian" in the United States. That's pretty much endorsing what he has to say - not just saying he deserves a platform. Further, he doesn't call out the crazy stuff Cooper DOES say. The holocaust was just bad hotel management? Really?
In fact, Cooper's not a historian. He's just a guy who says a lot of stuff on the Internet and finds enough ignorant people who are disgruntled with life to attract eyeballs.
Tucker's world is one where Buckley and Churchill are bad guys. Hitler's just gotten a bad rap because the winners write history. No thanks to this nonsense. I don't need to censor this garbage, but anyone who both sides the Holocaust doesn't deserve to be taken seriously about ANYTHING.
I appreciate your thoughts and agree that Cooper doesn't meet the criteria of a "historian," at least in the traditional sense (e.g., proof of scholarship, etc.). But it was not misleading to suggest Carlson gave him a forum. That's precisely what he did. Your description of Cooper describes about 1 million X accounts ("a guy who says a lot of stuff on the internet and finds enough ignorant people who are disgruntled with life to attract eyeballs.") I really like that description, by the way. It is a feature of the dark side of social media.
There is a lot in your column today. What upsets me most about Darryl Cooper and Tucker Carlson is that they are helping to create a right-wing post-modernism - something that for most of the 20th Century was the purview of the Left. One of postmodernism's central tenets is destroying the shared history of a people and replacing it with the belief that there is no such thing as objective truth (which makes the word "belief" oxymoronic - how can you believe anything if there is no such thing as truth?). What is the only "truth" of postmodernism?" The pursuit and the will to power. I agree with you that the controversy has generated some tremendous historical rebuttals that remind us of the greatness of Churchill and the objective evil of Adolph Hitler. I highly recommend Andrew Roberts' piece in freebeacon.com in addition to your recommendation of reading Hansen and Ferguson.
As for Vice-President Harris, her determination to censor opinions different than her own shows how important the First Amendment of the Constitution is to our freedom. That does not mean we do not have to fight to preserve our rights; we do. But Harris' position on censoring opinions she labels disinformation - because, in her mind, disagreeing with her is disinformation - reveals a potent threat to democracy. Democrat threats to pack the Supreme Court show how it would be possible to change the interpretation of the Constitution and threaten our inalienable rights.
I agree with you. I'm still trying to decide how much I want to delve into Cooper's "work," which I am unfamiliar with. I find his writing tendentious and challenging to read. He reeks of darkness that I find unattractive, even repulsive. What Tucker sees in him escapes me. He should explain.
I'm sorry for commenting on my own post, but I just came across an X post by the founder/publisher of The Babylon Bee, the internet's best satire site. I wish I'd said this in my post:
"(Carlson) claims we're living in a society where you’re "not allowed" to express heterodox views. That's ridiculous. He and Cooper started a discussion. Others have continued it. No one has tried to end it. Pretending it’s “forbidden” just because people care enough about the truth to respond is both dumb and dishonest. The conversation happening over the last several days has been about whether or not Cooper’s claims are valid — it has not been about whether he had a right to make them. That's debate, not censorship." Bravo.
It's a bit misleading to say that all Tucker Carlson did was give Cooper a "forum," and that's what he's being criticized for.
He called him "maybe" the "most honest popular historian" in the United States. That's pretty much endorsing what he has to say - not just saying he deserves a platform. Further, he doesn't call out the crazy stuff Cooper DOES say. The holocaust was just bad hotel management? Really?
In fact, Cooper's not a historian. He's just a guy who says a lot of stuff on the Internet and finds enough ignorant people who are disgruntled with life to attract eyeballs.
Tucker's world is one where Buckley and Churchill are bad guys. Hitler's just gotten a bad rap because the winners write history. No thanks to this nonsense. I don't need to censor this garbage, but anyone who both sides the Holocaust doesn't deserve to be taken seriously about ANYTHING.
I appreciate your thoughts and agree that Cooper doesn't meet the criteria of a "historian," at least in the traditional sense (e.g., proof of scholarship, etc.). But it was not misleading to suggest Carlson gave him a forum. That's precisely what he did. Your description of Cooper describes about 1 million X accounts ("a guy who says a lot of stuff on the internet and finds enough ignorant people who are disgruntled with life to attract eyeballs.") I really like that description, by the way. It is a feature of the dark side of social media.
There is a lot in your column today. What upsets me most about Darryl Cooper and Tucker Carlson is that they are helping to create a right-wing post-modernism - something that for most of the 20th Century was the purview of the Left. One of postmodernism's central tenets is destroying the shared history of a people and replacing it with the belief that there is no such thing as objective truth (which makes the word "belief" oxymoronic - how can you believe anything if there is no such thing as truth?). What is the only "truth" of postmodernism?" The pursuit and the will to power. I agree with you that the controversy has generated some tremendous historical rebuttals that remind us of the greatness of Churchill and the objective evil of Adolph Hitler. I highly recommend Andrew Roberts' piece in freebeacon.com in addition to your recommendation of reading Hansen and Ferguson.
As for Vice-President Harris, her determination to censor opinions different than her own shows how important the First Amendment of the Constitution is to our freedom. That does not mean we do not have to fight to preserve our rights; we do. But Harris' position on censoring opinions she labels disinformation - because, in her mind, disagreeing with her is disinformation - reveals a potent threat to democracy. Democrat threats to pack the Supreme Court show how it would be possible to change the interpretation of the Constitution and threaten our inalienable rights.
I agree with you. I'm still trying to decide how much I want to delve into Cooper's "work," which I am unfamiliar with. I find his writing tendentious and challenging to read. He reeks of darkness that I find unattractive, even repulsive. What Tucker sees in him escapes me. He should explain.
Thank you for this essay Kelly. One of your best. It’s always the first commentary I read of many in my in box.
I am honored and humbled. Thank you, Cheryl.
I'm sorry for commenting on my own post, but I just came across an X post by the founder/publisher of The Babylon Bee, the internet's best satire site. I wish I'd said this in my post:
"(Carlson) claims we're living in a society where you’re "not allowed" to express heterodox views. That's ridiculous. He and Cooper started a discussion. Others have continued it. No one has tried to end it. Pretending it’s “forbidden” just because people care enough about the truth to respond is both dumb and dishonest. The conversation happening over the last several days has been about whether or not Cooper’s claims are valid — it has not been about whether he had a right to make them. That's debate, not censorship." Bravo.
always interesting and informative