If someone claims "brown people are replacing white people" they have a valid point. If someone claims "there's a Jewish conspiracy to replace white people with brown people" they don't have a valid point because there's no evidence and its totally ridiculous logically. If someone claims "Democrats want more POC in the US because it gives them more votes" this is not an unreasonable thesis, but the evidence is hard to come by to prove the thesis. Which one Tucker peddles I have no idea since i don't watch his show.
So you don't know what Tucker has to say and where he falls on this, but you're still nonetheless confident that he cannot be blamed. OK then.
If it helps, I posted a transcription of a Tucker monologue just up thread in which he talks about Biden trying to "change the racial mix of the country" with "non-white" DNA from the third world. It's straight up Nazi stuff.
No you can't. He's responsible for his opinions only. If he advocates violence, then he's at fault yes.
This is retarded. No one actually believes demagogues like that are just sharing their opinions and not expecting any kind of action, or that you can suggest violence without explicitly calling for it.
Mobster: "Nice place you got here, shame if it burned down."
Nipples: "He's obviously concerned with the state of the sprinkler system."
Go sue him in a court of law for being responsible for the Buffalo attacks, he will get off scot free because he had absolutely nothing to do with them in any way whatsoever.
Like that proves jack sh*t.
If a pro-choice advocate goes and murders a conservative SCOTUS justice we can't go blame Don Lemon for it because he's "whipping up anger" on CNN every night because of the Roe v Wade repeal.
It depends entirely on the content of the message. But given your admitted ignorance of the content of Carlson's message, I can see why you don't want to address that side.