Diamond and Silk have discovered that there is a level of stupidity that can get them booted from the network.
Fox News has cut ties with MAGA vlogging superstars Diamond & Silk, who had contributed original content to the network’s streaming service Fox Nation since shortly after its late 2018 launch.
The sudden split comes after the Trump-boosting siblings have come under fire for promoting conspiracy theories and disinformation about the coronavirus. “After what they’ve said and tweeted you won’t be seeing them on Fox Nation or Fox News anytime soon,” a source with knowledge of the matter told The Daily Beast.
It’s not clear what exactly triggered some Fox executive somewhere. Was it:
- claiming that coronavirus deaths were exaggerated?
- arguing that the virus was engineered?
- suggesting that WHO had a “switch” to turn the virus on and off?
- claiming that we had to end the isolation to cultivate an immune response?
- saying that Bill Gates was promoting vaccines for population control? “Abortions! Genocide!”
- suggesting that 5G towers were used to fill hospitals for their profit?
If Diamond and Silk (the pro wrestling names of Lynette Hardaway and Rochelle Richardson) were making the network look bad, what about all those other sycophantic suck-ups like Hannity and Watters and Carlson and Fox & Friends? I don’t think there’s any degree of purging that can rescue the reputation of Fox News anymore.
It always puzzled me how could anyone black or other non white even think Trump was a decent president. I still have no clue other than mental illness of some type
Cause they’re guilty of being black in the first degree.
I heard an internet ad that had quite a number of black people endorsing Trump and laughing at the very idea that he is a racist. It is hard for me to fathom.
I fail to see why race had to enter into this conversation. Stupid is stupid everywhere and knows no limits.
I don’t think it is about stupid. These women found a way to grift a lot of money. These women saw the wingnut welfare available that no one was taking and they crated an act that probably is paying them quite well. Perhaps they are smart enough to understand that they only had a limited shelf life. It is not surprising that Fox threw them under the bus, but have kept and still support the white people spouting the same garbage.
#4
It is a racist conversation that is why. Diamond and Silk are a racist right wing media creation. They are racist in the same way minstrel shows were racist. That the right wing position them as some sort of spokespeople for black america is racist. That they position them to be mocked and ridiculed is racist. Claiming not to see race does not make things nonracial.
“I don’t think there’s any degree of purging that can rescue the reputation of Fox News anymore.”
Until Mr Murdoch goes to his well deserved reserved place in L’Inferno the poison will continue. The purge awaits events.
“I don’t think there’s any degree of purging that can rescue the reputation of Fox News anymore.”
To which reputation are you referring? Fox News hasn’t had a decent reputation as an actual outlet for news in quite some time, and their reputation amidst their propaganda-fueled base remains unsullied by countervailing evidence, reality, or even death.
So, what reputation are we talking about here? I think their profit margin is still healthy, so that’s really the only reputation anyone in management cares about.
And D&S have run their time. Anyone not lily-white has a time limit on that network, as the fans won’t tolerate extended exposure to “those people”, especially beyond what would be convenient to “own the libs”, or “show those people”. There is ALWAYS a secondary agenda on Fox.
There is no redemption for Fox, and the death of Murdock won’t kill it off. The only remedy would be to plow it and the shit that fertilizes it under and to salt the hell out of it.
@5 has it right. D&S are propaganda props and tokens. And apparently disposable.
This is not a case of mental illness. I’d guess two things: 1) outright venality, as has been mentioned. It’s hard to question something you’re getting paid lots of money to do. 2) Their choices have moved them deeper and deeper into the right wing bubble. They aren’t “lying”, they’re just echoing the batshit ideas of their fellow travelers.
Benedict @ #6
We can dream but he has 6 children. Of the four involved in the business, the youngest is James Murdoch. He has served in executive positions for several properties in the Fox Corp empire. He’s most noted for chairman of News Group Newspapers during that rather nasty “phone hacking” scandal.
Then there’s Lachlan, who is seen as the likely successor to the throne. He is the current chairman and CEO of Fox Corporation. Anything going in the Fox world right now could start and stop at his door. He’s a mere 48.
Yet Hannity’s viewers provably died at a higher rate than other Fox shows. This was not an evidence-based decision. Well, not if it was a public health-related decision.
Fox… professional wrestling… cheesy-assed morality plays propping up debased cultural norms.
@9 Agreed. They drank the Koolaid and liked it. Spend too much time in an echo chamber and you end up with only one narrative. It doesn’t matter where you are on the political spectrum. I will say that the right has become increasingly insular over the last two decades and Fox News is very much guilty of deepening the cultural schism. My grandfather, toward the end of his life, spend all day every day glued to Fox News. Fox News changed him. He was a good patriotic man, who was mostly apolitical but he came to believe the propaganda because it was more comfortable for him than accepting the new reality. America was changing and he was in his 90s and he wasn’t comfortable with all the non-European immigrants. So yeah, he was a bit racist. Fox just amplified that prejudice and fed it back to him.
I watched my grandfather who had previously ignored politics devolve into a racist bigot and, while 9-11 may have been the trigger, Fox News amplified that racism until I could no longer stand the man.
Oh, please. I’ve got a C-note that says Siphon and Bilk will be back on the network before November. They are simply too essential to the network’s and Rethug party’s efforts to claim that black people are leaving the Democrats in droves. The only alternative is to dress Hannity and Tucker “My Peas Are Still Cold” Carlson up in black face and do an old fashioned minstrel show.
Hell, by November, they might be doing Op Eds for the New York Times.
Another way of looking at this: Siphon and Bilk are pioneers that penetrated too far into the crazy ahead of their fellow Rethugs. They just have to wait for the rest of the party to catch up.
How long until this is the new norm ?
@17
For example?
#9 Dr. M,
So what you’re suggesting is that these two people could not be supporting Trump unless they are being paid to do so and they’re not really right-wing believers but just brainwashed.
If these were two white women with the same boisterous personalities, the same reich-wing stances, would you accuse them of being whores out for profit and dupes in an echo chamber?
Can not two black people be just as fucking politically stupid as two white people?
The fact that the first few messages out of the box here are race-centered reactions shows just how insidiously powerful buried racism is in this society.
@#16, daverytier
It already is.
@#18,Akira MacKenzie
That Joe Biden stands any chance of returning us to the status quo circa 2015, which is clearly the message of his campaign (and even people on this board seem to believe it implicitly)? That returning to the status quo circa 2015 would even be a good idea in the first place? That Joe Biden, after a multiple-decade career entirely built out of either incompetence or outright sabotage (depending on how smart you think he is), is capable of preventing the federal government from utter collapse? That the establishment figures of the Democratic Party aren’t complicit in all the major policy failures of the last 30 years? That Hillary Clinton’s campaign was not, first and foremost, a cult of personality? That voting for the invasion of Iraq is a forgivable peccadillo which can be swept under the carpet? That NAFTA and the TPP were not right-wing wet dreams, support for which ought to disqualify anybody hoping for Democratic endorsement? That we’re going to get out of this current mess with a functioning government without an unprecedented spending package on social programs? That a candidate who tries to “stay the course” and ends up doing nothing at all does not result in the right wing moving even further into insanity while simultaneously handing over the next election to them? That pro-corporate judges like Sotomayor are somehow on the left?
I could go on for a long, long time.
#17
“In their defense, leftists believe a lot of things without any real evidence too.”
But if you had an actual argument that supported such an odd statement you would have presented it wouldn’t you?
#21
Those seem to be comments of your own political fever dream and you seem to want to enforce some sort of ideological purity. Also, a number are not what main stream “leftists” believe. Trying to paint Justice Sotomayor as some sort right wing shill, destroys any credibility you seem to want to build.
@ 19
I don’t recall anyone on the Left ever saying that any government was inherently free of greed or corruption. Indeed, Trump and his merry band of free-market-loving, limited-government, tax-and-regulations-slashing colleagues should be enough to dash that illusion. It’s capitalism that the left has a beef with. Now kindly clean up all this straw you left and go away.
I’m a member of several communities. These communities include Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindis, Mormons, New Agers, Atheists, and lord knows what all. We do community pretty damn well, I think. Without the comfort of a common belief system, we do at least as well as the god-fearing folk in the country churches I went to as a kid, or the in town First Baptist church in Jefferson City, Tennessee,
No, I understood you perfectly: you said that the Left irrationally believes that “people who run governments are any less greedy, self-interested and open to corruption as people who run major corporations” without giving any evidence that’s what the Left actually believes. When last I looked, that was a strawman fallacy.
@#22, Bruce Fuentes
One of the weirdest arguments of Democratic loyalists is that objecting to policies which were objective outright failures — sometimes actual outright disasters — is calling for “ideological purity”. To take a major example: Iraq was a disaster; the head of the Senate Intelligence Committee sent out a warning to all Senators two weeks before the vote on it saying that the Bush administration’s claims were, where information was available, lies, and unverifiable outside of the lies; all the major Democratic figures who were in the Senate either did not read this warning — which is incompetence on an amazing scale — or read it and ignored it — which is malevolence. Similar things are true with NAFTA, Libya, Syria, the TPP, the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006, the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005, Trump’s military spending boosts, the arms deal with Saudi Arabia which basically created the Yemen genocide, etc. etc. etc. The argument that objecting to this is somehow an obsession with ideology is like trying to claim that the people prosecuting Bernie Madoff are motivated by ideology. People who both consistently and persistently produce failure need to be removed from power. It has nothing to do with ideology, unless you think that the only objection to a failed state is ideological.
They’re things a majority of Democrats believe, and Democrats usually consider themselves to be on the left. If that weren’t the case, Joe Biden would not only not be the prospective nominee but he would have never gotten enough delegates to stay in the race at all.
She is exactly what you would expect from Obama: her principles are on the left only so long as there is no money involved. The minute a multinational corporation gets involved in a case, she comes down on their side. If your idea of being “leftist” is that you support corporations whenever possible, then I guess she’s a leftist.
Oh, the classic bothsideism
… remember boys, if there is a conflict, both sides are always equally wrong and the truth is always in the middle. :-D
For example the mugger and the mugged. Round Earth flat Earth. Nazi and Jews. 2+2 = 4 vs 2+2 = 5, and so on …
It’s even in the Wikipedia : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation
Can I post images ? https://minecraft.gamepedia.com/File:Creebet_Painting.png
next try picture
Apparently, not. Fair enough. Then the classic way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
So it is bothsideism.
There are kids in the kindergarten who steal and do other naughty things. Just like the yakuza. It’s just the rotten human nature. It’s all the same.
Stop putting that straw man into my mouth. It’s icky.
.
Bothsideism is “both sides are bad”. ( or irrational or whatever ) too. And that’s what you are doing.
.
Yes, all people are fallible. But that doesn’t mean that all people and all groups are equally, or even comparably irrational.
Leftist can belive in a lot of dumb shit. Seth Rich conspiracy, Castro/Stalin apologists, puroty politics to name a few.
But leftist bullshit pales compared to what you find on the Right. There is no comparison here.
azpaul3 (#20)
Statistically speaking, sure. But black women are far, far less likely to indulge in political foolishness because, thanks to racism and sexism and racialized sexism, they bear the brunt of everyone’s foolishness. It’s a survival mechanism to be more politically savvy than the majority of the population, and some of that is realizing how sucking up to power doesn’t make you safer.
“Noticing racism is the real racism!”
Uh huh. Sure.
coldhardrealist (#24)
That people in general are prone to believing irrational, wrong things in general doesn’t support your point that a specific group of people believes a specific irrational, wrong thing. You still have to show that the specific group believes the specific thing. That’s what people are taking issue with.
(#19)
As for this, it sounds like you’re injecting your own misunderstanding into what leftist actually say, which is that bad actors in government are easier to remove from power than those in the private sector. And they well know that it only holds true to the extent that the government actually answers to the people. But private corporations, by design, are only ever accountable to their shareholders, no matter the local political structure.
A. Noyd and daverytier great distillation of arguments to show the fallacy and ridiculousness of the arguments presented. The attack against Sotomayor, without evidence is just bizarre. If some sort of evidence was presented with the attack then I could either agree or argue against. But to just make an attack and not back it with facts just makes me ignore whatever the person has to say.
logicalcat @ #38
I think that stupidity, venality and corruption are failures for people who hold progressive principles. For a lot of “conservatives” today, those are their principles.
@42
Aint that the truth.
I mean isn’t that the truth. I thinking using aint makes it negative? I don’t know my grammar sucks.
@ 44 you were right @ 43
It’s deprecated in some contexts, but personally I think you can, with some discretion, treat it as a register or colloquialism. It gives some folks a case of the vapors so it can be used for that too.
Some commentary on it here:
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/ain%27t
Elsewhere on Fox News , Tucker Carlson is trying to rewrite the Linnean System
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2020/04/try-stir-fried-fox-with-news-on-side.html
You already have.
I see “coldhardrealist” is yet another example of the phenomenon that people who give themselves pat-on-own-back names such as “rationalist”, “truth-seeker”, “impartialobserver” etc., are almost always hilariously wrong in their self-estimation. Your understanding of “leftist economic thought”, coldhardrealist, is ludicrously wrong. The actual “central premise” is that production should not be determined by the search for private profit, but by human needs. How to achieve that has been a subject of debate on the left for a century and a half, and that the government should run everything centrally has been only one – and pretty much completely abandoned – answer.
Took me a few days to figure out who those 2 reminded me of , Uncle Ruckus from Boondocks
5:
It is a racist conversation that is why. Diamond and Silk are a racist right wing media creation. They are racist in the same way minstrel shows were racist.
How in the name of Mrs Malaprop are black slapstick female wrestlers racist in the same way as white men wearing blackface?
@ 49
Not the wrestling, teh fox. On one level it’s a natural progression from one downscale venue to another.
The minstrelsy however is complicated, black performers also wore black face. The difference here is that while D&S are probably not racist, they did have other options than to be the willing dupes of the assholes at Fox.
For perspective, it should also be pointed out that ‘liberal’ white guy Colmes was also a prop for Hannity. It’s a pattern at Fox.
“another example of the phenomenon that people who give themselves pat-on-own-back names such as “rationalist”, “truth-seeker”, “impartialobserver” etc., are almost always hilariously wrong in their self-estimation.”
But, like, this doesnt apply to cats right?