i would say the problem with tucker is tucker. there was that viral tweet a couple months ago where a guy went on tucker and pantsed him, and they just shitcanned the interview.
that's why there's no point, more than anything
drake no: purity testing the candidates
drake yes: purity testing the voters
I would be very surprised if Bernie or his staff were not aware of what Joe Rogan does, and they still thought this was a good idea worth pursuing. Why can't Rogan also be an entry point for people to go left? I believe that if a rational undecided person has a frank and honest explanation of Bernie's policies versus an alt-right nazi's policies, that person will choose the not insane option. So it seems that Bernie's team likely agreed and felt that getting his message out to more people was more beneficial than whatever portion of the people who saw it will end up joining the alt right.
I'm surprised people think that there are people who would tune in to hear this podcast they haven't heard of because of Bernie, then stick around and end up becoming alt right because of Joe Rogan's other guests. That seems like a stretch to me. The average person who is going to listen to this podcast for the first time because they're interested in hearing Bernie talk is also easily swayed to the side of nazis? I'm not saying that can't happen, but that doesn't seem like a default outcome. Is there any research about Rogan's podcast specifically in this regard?
edit: But I mean it's possible I'm wrong here. Maybe there are a lot of people who hate bernie and hear there's an hour long podcast where he talks at length with the fear factor guy and decide to hate listen to it, but that would really surprise me!
Yes, it was posted in the third comment on this thread.
Talk show hosts like Rubin and Rogan depend upon a large number of guest stars and organically connect with other content creators, which is why they are included within this network. Even though they aren’t at the very center of the AIN, with the greatest amount of connections between users, they often serve as a gateway to more extreme users, especially because both have had guests from the far right.
“The Youtube collaborative network really functions differently than an interview on a mainstream network would,” Lewis told Motherboard. “A lot of times, they signify social ties as much as formal interviews… It is really messy. The defense that people like Rubin use is that they’re journalists, they’re going to interview people whose opinions they disagree with.”
In essence, this strategy makes their guest stars more palatable to their audience as human beings, building the human-to-human trust that fuels the AIN.
Rubin tends to engage with these ideas of these individuals in a direct discussion, but he rarely challenges them on their views. Meanwhile, Rogan tend to feed his guest stars easy questions and ignore their more controversial views. Users may notice that Rubin engages with these controversial ideas while Rogan doesn’t (it’s worth noting that Rubin tours with Intellectual Dark Web hero Jordan Peterson.) However, it’s unclear whether this distinction matters. Users are still likely to look up more extreme fringe content, or have YouTube recommend this content, if a fringe figure is featured as a guest star. Interestingly—while many YouTubers do interview shows like journalists, when they are criticized, their fans often defend them by saying "they're not journalists" and thus have no obligation to ask hard questions.
That article is talking about someone who is making an argument based on the youtube algorithm, not actual statistics of users who might show up to hear a left leaning person talk and then get swayed to the alt right instead, right? And I don't see it mentioning if people engage with the left through Rogan in the same way. I agree that the youtube algorithm is a problem, but I'm not sure that means left leaning voices shouldn't try to get their ideas into the mix.
Everyone trying themselves in knots to defend Rogan so they can defend Bernie is one of the reasons this is harmful btw
Is this kinda just a blanket accusation to anyone or do you have anyone in mind? Virtue signaling to people who agree with you that your side is right is empty. This post is glorified pom poms.
I would be very surprised if Bernie or his staff were not aware of what Joe Rogan does, and they still thought this was a good idea worth pursuing.
Someone in the press needs to ask Bernie and his staff this, I'm curious about the response we'd get.
Why can't Rogan also be an entry point for people to go left?
Because he has no interest in doing so. Bernie's an outlier here.
I'm surprised people think that there are people who would tune in to hear this podcast they haven't heard of because of Bernie, then stick around and end up becoming alt right because of Joe Rogan's other guests. That seems like a stretch to me. The average person who is going to listen to this podcast for the first time because they're interested in hearing Bernie talk is also easily swayed to the side of nazis? I'm not saying that can't happen, but that doesn't seem like a default outcome. Is there any research about Rogan's podcast specifically in this regard?
Bernie's got a base which have segments which are vulnerable to Rogan, same with candidates like Marianne Williamson and Yang. Bernie and his staff are counting on this, it's why they're doing this while other candidates like Elisabeth Warren aren't. I don't know why you should be giving Rogan the benefit of a doubt concerning the evidence presented against him here and the other thread. I would like someone to do research on that with his program like you're asking, too.
edit: But I mean it's possible I'm wrong here. Maybe there are a lot of people who hate bernie and hear there's an hour long podcast where he talks at length with the fear factor guy and decide to hate listen to it, but that would really surprise me!
Bernie's a controversial yet fascinating person, him interacting wth Rogan would be an interesting experience - just like with Musk.
Everyone trying themselves in knots to defend Rogan so they can defend Bernie is one of the reasons this is harmful btw
Is this kinda just a blanket accusation to anyone or do you have anyone in mind? Virtue signaling to people who agree with you that your side is right is empty. This post is glorified pom poms.
You for one.
Care to elaborate how I am tying myself into knots to defend Rogan?
Like you can't just sack off Tucker Carlson listeners as a lost cause. These people can come around. They can be persuaded. If Biden made a good showing to them (and I think he did) he will build up a strong movement!
Somehow I think this statement, while functionally identical, would get a different response from the folks defending Sanders here.
Yeah because Tucker Carlson will actively twist the presentation of someone's position to support his agenda and Rogan won't, and Biden is a shitty centrist who can barely make a speech
And there’s the root cause. It’s ok for Sanders because you agree with him, and you like how he talks.
It isn't but if you want to think it is I'm not particularly bothered
Why can't Rogan also be an entry point for people to go left?
Because he has no interest in doing so. Bernie's an outlier here.
I googled a bit because I was curious. There have been people in the Rogan subreddit asking about the prominent leftists that Rogan has had on, and it got some interesting responses. Many people said that he primarily has left leaning folks on but that a lot of them are comedians and such. Someone posted a list of people but I didn't recognize many names. Here's that list:
I (OP) would say Noam Chomsky. A more youthful example may be Keeanga Yamahtta Taylor.
Other notable people: Kimberlé Crenshaw, Eddie Glaude, Michelle Alexander, Cornel West, Angela Davis, Kiese Laymon, Peniel Joseph, James Forman, Paul Butler, Tommie Shelby, Robin D. G. Kelley, Cathy Cohen, Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, Khalil Gibran Muhammad, Nina Turner, Bryan Stevenson, Nell Irvin Painter, Elizabeth Hinton, Briahna Joy Gray
I think people who listen to Rogan would probably disagree that Rogan is only an entry point for the alt right. If we assume that all those names I'm definitely not going to sit here and google are actually leftists, that seems like quite a bit of people compared to the few conservative names that get brought up, though the conservative/alt right names are ones I've heard of more often.
I don't necessarily think Joe Rogan has an interest in drawing people to a particular political spectrum, but rather just likes to talk to prominent people and hear their ideas, regardless of what those ideas might be. Whether or not this is a good thing is certainly up for debate of course.
Everyone trying themselves in knots to defend Rogan so they can defend Bernie is one of the reasons this is harmful btw
Is this kinda just a blanket accusation to anyone or do you have anyone in mind? Virtue signaling to people who agree with you that your side is right is empty. This post is glorified pom poms.
You for one.
Care to elaborate how I am tying myself into knots to defend Rogan?
First page you claimed all media sucks and unless its devoted to actual pedophilia or Nazis it was all fine. Then you tried to equate Rogan with "shock jocks" and equated his show with the Breakfast Club. Then it became he wasn't really political, he just likes some conspiracy theories as if that wasn't central to the alt-right. You repeatedly claimed he wasn't alt right to try to blunt the criticism despite his transphobia, racism, sexism and routine hosting of Nazis.
I honestly can't imagine you think you're successfully fooling anyone.
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
If every ten guests David Letterman had had on a white supremacist and treated them exactly the same as all the other guests, gentle kidding and plugging their new book, that wouldn’t make Letterman a Nazi, but it would encourage some Letterman viewers to think of white supremacy as a normal part of the political spectrum, and some of them would go read the book and be lost. It doesn’t really matter who the other nine guests are. And the only value of going on his show if you were someone who cared about that would be to say, “How can you do this?”
This piece talks about Rogan's ties to the alt-right, and how his own views mesh in. The interesting point comes at the end, however:
In a February interview with Twitter’s Jack Dorsey, Rogan reflected on how his podcast has grown to the point where, unhappily, people now have expectations of him. “I didn’t fucking plan this. So now all of the sudden there’s this signal that I’m sending out to millions and millions of people, and then people are like, ‘Well, you have a responsibility,’ and I’m like, ‘Oh, great. Well, I didn’t want that.’ ” Later he went on, “There’s certain people that I’ll have on, whether it’s Alex Jones or anyone that’s controversial, where people who get fucking mad. ‘Why are you giving this person a platform?’ OK. Hmm. I didn’t think about it that way, and I don’t think that’s what I’m doing. I think I’m talking to people, and you can listen.”
This wasn’t just Rogan complaining about his success. This was a mission statement: a vision of a truly independent podcast in which the host is immune to pressure from his listeners, in which he is responsible to no one except himself, and his show’s priorities are guided exclusively by his own catholic interests. I can get behind this vision, even if Rogan’s interests do not match my own.
The YouTube stream of the Jack Dorsey podcast got 13,000 likes and 86,000 dislikes. Viewers thought Rogan had betrayed them by failing to press Dorsey about why various right-wing figures had been deplatformed while people such as Kathy Griffin got to stay. One YouTube commenter wrote, “wtf is going on here!” “Censorship of conservatives is evil and you didn’t call him out. Coward,” wrote another.
For the entire following week, Rogan fretted on air about the blowback. He spent hours overcompensating by dwelling on the questions that he might have asked Dorsey had he bothered to prepare for the initial conversation. Far from hewing to his “it’s my show, listen or don’t” philosophy, Rogan seemed afraid—as if he had realized that the listeners who have made him a rich and influential man will tune out as soon as he stops playing to their political biases.
Inevitably, like a mad scientist desperately trying to appease the monster of his own creation, Rogan gave in to his listeners and rebooked Dorsey for another episode, a month after the first. For 3½ hours, Rogan and Tim Pool pressed Dorsey and Twitter exec Vijaya Gadde on their reasons for banning Yiannopoulos, Alex Jones, Gavin McInnes, Jacob Wohl, and Chuck Johnson, among others; on the importance of allowing conservatives to misgender people online; and on the injustice of perma-banning the right-wing trolls and anti-intellectual intellectuals to whom Rogan is indebted for his late-career success. It was a tough interview, though one unlikely to be appreciated outside the Breitbart set. Finally, we saw what the third eye adorning Rogan’s mug on his podcast art really sees: fear.
The fact that he took alt-right blowback on Dorsey seriously shows that he knows where his bread is buttered.
If every ten guests David Letterman had had on a white supremacist and treated them exactly the same as all the other guests, gentle kidding and plugging their new book, that wouldn’t make Letterman a Nazi, but it would encourage some Letterman viewers to think of white supremacy as a normal part of the political spectrum, and some of them would go read the book and be lost. It doesn’t really matter who the other nine guests are. And the only value of going on his show if you were someone who cared about that would be to say, “How can you do this?”
Having never watched the rogan podcast, but having read a lot of the comments in the rogan subreddit about various guests, I don't think his audience views any part of that as a normal part of the political spectrum.
I see what you're saying, but I think Letterman is a very different thing from this long form podcast type thing, especially because the host is bringing up all kinds of weird stuff all the time. It doesn't come across as mainstream normality to me and I don't think his viewers see it that way either.
And looking at a list of his previous guests, he seems to have quite a few people on there that I like a lot, though a huge number seem to be comedians, which makes sense.
Everyone trying themselves in knots to defend Rogan so they can defend Bernie is one of the reasons this is harmful btw
Is this kinda just a blanket accusation to anyone or do you have anyone in mind? Virtue signaling to people who agree with you that your side is right is empty. This post is glorified pom poms.
You for one.
Care to elaborate how I am tying myself into knots to defend Rogan?
First page you claimed all media sucks and unless its devoted to actual pedophilia or Nazis it was all fine. Then you tried to equate Rogan with "shock jocks" and equated his show with the Breakfast Club. Then it became he wasn't really political, he just likes some conspiracy theories as if that wasn't central to the alt-right. You repeatedly claimed he wasn't alt right to try to blunt the criticism despite his transphobia, racism, sexism and routine hosting of Nazis.
I honestly can't imagine you think you're successfully fooling anyone.
1) is still true all media is pretty bad. If you think the comparative harm of Rogan talking to everyone is worse than news orgs that pushed for war in the middle east, sorry I disagree.
2) Rogan is a shock jock and the breakfast club also trucks in the same kind of space
3) I never said he wasn't political and actually said he seems to be some middle of the road libertarian and that his views were kinda shit.
Conspiracy theories aren't an alt right thing. I don't know how you could make a statement when vaccines are right there.
4) I said no one had evidence he was alt right and saying shitty things does not make you alt right.
So again I have not defended Rogan. The main stream media has tons of people they actually employ with some of those(transphobia, racism, sexism and routine hosting of Nazis) ideals. I don't see you calling for people to not show up on CNN or MSNBC or some of the left leaning podcasts.
psn: PhasenWeeple
+2
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
Like you can't just sack off Tucker Carlson listeners as a lost cause. These people can come around. They can be persuaded. If Biden made a good showing to them (and I think he did) he will build up a strong movement!
Somehow I think this statement, while functionally identical, would get a different response from the folks defending Sanders here.
Only if you consider people who listen to Joe Rogan functionally identical to those that watch Tucker Carlson.
Do you think Tucker Carlson’s audience can’t be persuaded? That they can’t come around?
My interpretation of the statement is that the candidate should go anywhere they think they can change hearts and minds. Is that not the case? If it isn’t, why was Sanders on Rogans podcast in the first place?
Can Tucker Carlson's audience be persuaded? Sure, why not. It's an infinite universe after all. Is Joe Rogan's audience likely much more persuadable in the finite amount of time between now and the elections than that of Carlson? Oh hell yeah. Additionally, Joe is far less likely to ask ludicrously hostile and loaded questions than Tucker, and Tucker's show is edited while Joe's podcast seems to be a live action trainwreck. These are all elements that enter into deciding whether going on the show is worth it.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
Everyone trying themselves in knots to defend Rogan so they can defend Bernie is one of the reasons this is harmful btw
Is this kinda just a blanket accusation to anyone or do you have anyone in mind? Virtue signaling to people who agree with you that your side is right is empty. This post is glorified pom poms.
You for one.
Care to elaborate how I am tying myself into knots to defend Rogan?
First page you claimed all media sucks and unless its devoted to actual pedophilia or Nazis it was all fine. Then you tried to equate Rogan with "shock jocks" and equated his show with the Breakfast Club. Then it became he wasn't really political, he just likes some conspiracy theories as if that wasn't central to the alt-right. You repeatedly claimed he wasn't alt right to try to blunt the criticism despite his transphobia, racism, sexism and routine hosting of Nazis.
I honestly can't imagine you think you're successfully fooling anyone.
1) is still true all media is pretty bad. If you think the comparative harm of Rogan talking to everyone is worse than news orgs that pushed for war in the middle east, sorry I disagree.
2) Rogan is a shock jock and the breakfast club also trucks in the same kind of space
3) I never said he wasn't political and actually said he seems to be some middle of the road libertarian and that his views were kinda shit.
Conspiracy theories aren't an alt right thing. I don't know how you could make a statement when vaccines are right there.
4) I said no one had evidence he was alt right and saying shitty things does not make you alt right.
So again I have not defended Rogan. The main stream media has tons of people they actually employ with some of those(transphobia, racism, sexism and routine hosting of Nazis) ideals. I don't see you calling for people to not show up on CNN or MSNBC or some of the left leaning podcasts.
You're literally defending in this exact post because you know if Rogan is alt right its bad for Bernie to have gone on his show.
If every ten guests David Letterman had had on a white supremacist and treated them exactly the same as all the other guests, gentle kidding and plugging their new book, that wouldn’t make Letterman a Nazi, but it would encourage some Letterman viewers to think of white supremacy as a normal part of the political spectrum, and some of them would go read the book and be lost. It doesn’t really matter who the other nine guests are. And the only value of going on his show if you were someone who cared about that would be to say, “How can you do this?”
I mean, if you live in the US white supremacy already is a normal part of the political spectrum. There isn't one media figure, show host or whatever who can either normalize white supremacy or see to it that it's properly marginalized.
Everyone trying themselves in knots to defend Rogan so they can defend Bernie is one of the reasons this is harmful btw
Is this kinda just a blanket accusation to anyone or do you have anyone in mind? Virtue signaling to people who agree with you that your side is right is empty. This post is glorified pom poms.
You for one.
Care to elaborate how I am tying myself into knots to defend Rogan?
First page you claimed all media sucks and unless its devoted to actual pedophilia or Nazis it was all fine. Then you tried to equate Rogan with "shock jocks" and equated his show with the Breakfast Club. Then it became he wasn't really political, he just likes some conspiracy theories as if that wasn't central to the alt-right. You repeatedly claimed he wasn't alt right to try to blunt the criticism despite his transphobia, racism, sexism and routine hosting of Nazis.
I honestly can't imagine you think you're successfully fooling anyone.
1) is still true all media is pretty bad. If you think the comparative harm of Rogan talking to everyone is worse than news orgs that pushed for war in the middle east, sorry I disagree.
2) Rogan is a shock jock and the breakfast club also trucks in the same kind of space
3) I never said he wasn't political and actually said he seems to be some middle of the road libertarian and that his views were kinda shit.
Conspiracy theories aren't an alt right thing. I don't know how you could make a statement when vaccines are right there.
4) I said no one had evidence he was alt right and saying shitty things does not make you alt right.
So again I have not defended Rogan. The main stream media has tons of people they actually employ with some of those(transphobia, racism, sexism and routine hosting of Nazis) ideals. I don't see you calling for people to not show up on CNN or MSNBC or some of the left leaning podcasts.
You're literally defending in this exact post because you know if Rogan is alt right its bad for Bernie to have gone on his show.
You're conflating two different positions:
One which pushes back on the accusation that Rogan is alt right
Two which argues that regardless of Rogan's personal politics Sanders made the right decision to go onto his show
If every ten guests David Letterman had had on a white supremacist and treated them exactly the same as all the other guests, gentle kidding and plugging their new book, that wouldn’t make Letterman a Nazi, but it would encourage some Letterman viewers to think of white supremacy as a normal part of the political spectrum, and some of them would go read the book and be lost. It doesn’t really matter who the other nine guests are. And the only value of going on his show if you were someone who cared about that would be to say, “How can you do this?”
I mean, if you live in the US white supremacy already is a normal part of the political spectrum. There isn't one media figure, show host or whatever who can either normalize white supremacy or see to it that it's properly marginalized.
And yet the way we get to marginalizing white supremacy is for media figures to choose to not support it. No, there's no one person who will change things on their own, because it's a collective effort.
Everyone trying themselves in knots to defend Rogan so they can defend Bernie is one of the reasons this is harmful btw
Is this kinda just a blanket accusation to anyone or do you have anyone in mind? Virtue signaling to people who agree with you that your side is right is empty. This post is glorified pom poms.
You for one.
Care to elaborate how I am tying myself into knots to defend Rogan?
First page you claimed all media sucks and unless its devoted to actual pedophilia or Nazis it was all fine. Then you tried to equate Rogan with "shock jocks" and equated his show with the Breakfast Club. Then it became he wasn't really political, he just likes some conspiracy theories as if that wasn't central to the alt-right. You repeatedly claimed he wasn't alt right to try to blunt the criticism despite his transphobia, racism, sexism and routine hosting of Nazis.
I honestly can't imagine you think you're successfully fooling anyone.
1) is still true all media is pretty bad. If you think the comparative harm of Rogan talking to everyone is worse than news orgs that pushed for war in the middle east, sorry I disagree.
2) Rogan is a shock jock and the breakfast club also trucks in the same kind of space
3) I never said he wasn't political and actually said he seems to be some middle of the road libertarian and that his views were kinda shit.
Conspiracy theories aren't an alt right thing. I don't know how you could make a statement when vaccines are right there.
4) I said no one had evidence he was alt right and saying shitty things does not make you alt right.
So again I have not defended Rogan. The main stream media has tons of people they actually employ with some of those(transphobia, racism, sexism and routine hosting of Nazis) ideals. I don't see you calling for people to not show up on CNN or MSNBC or some of the left leaning podcasts.
You're literally defending in this exact post because you know if Rogan is alt right its bad for Bernie to have gone on his show.
So the rest was a gish gallop attempt? I don't agree with your assessment of Rogan as alt right and if your line is that anyone who disagrees with you is defending Rogan then sorry it's a dumb line and is again a virtue signal that the only path forward is your own despite what others provide as examples of him hosting every stripe of the spectrum.
I'm curious. If Fox News gave a 20 minute prime time slot to a left leaning/liberal/democrat without any sort of interruption or member of fox news to sit there any pepper them with loaded questions, would we have a problem with that as well?
That sort of seems to be the crux of the discussion. Is it better to wade into an echo chamber to get a voice we believe is worth hearing into people's ears, or do we risk people sticking around in the echo chamber if we open that door?
Regardless of what people think of Rogan in particular, I think this is a very interesting question that I'm not sure about. Youtube algorithms certainly cause problems, but I'd be curious to see a study about something like my Fox News hypothetical.
I'm curious. If Fox News gave a 20 minute prime time slot to a left leaning/liberal/democrat without any sort of interruption or member of fox news to sit there any pepper them with loaded questions, would we have a problem with that as well?
That sort of seems to be the crux of the discussion. Is it better to wade into an echo chamber to get a voice we believe is worth hearing into people's ears, or do we risk people sticking around in the echo chamber if we open that door?
Regardless of what people think of Rogan in particular, I think this is a very interesting question that I'm not sure about. Youtube algorithms certainly cause problems, but I'd be curious to see a study about something like my Fox News hypothetical.
Bernie did this and mostly the same folks who hated him doing Rogan's podcast hated it. The idea as I understand it is that those people(the audience) are not to be talked to because they are brain washed.
Anyone who posts a twitter hot take about Bernie going on Joe's show is swimming in a sea of shit to demand Bernie clean under his finger nails.
This is not 'twisting in knots to defend Joe'. In fact, it is not a defense of Joe at all.
This is acknowledging the fact that virtually all media is complicit in the alt-right hate machine.
If you believe that twitter is too big to ignore, but Joe Rogan is not. Then you have to show that Joe is having a larger impact for the Alt-right than his size would suggest.
If you agree with that oft posted article, and Rogan is a soft entry point to Alt-right radicalization, then that makes his show the perfect place to send a leftist to stop listeners from entering the alt right sphere.
If you truly believe that, then you should be cheering every time someone from the left gets on there and turns a few back around. The left should be flooding Rogan's show with reasonable voices to convert the convertible.
I mean, if you want to talk about scale, then currently, Twitter is a big enough platform to be a necessary evil for a candidate to utilize.
Joe Rogan is not.
Oh, I see. This is very interesting, since is a shift from "Rogan is uniquely awful" to "We put up with shit with the MSM, we shouldn't do it from a dinky podcast". Now we can see that is just elitist posturing.
You're calling my stance "elitist posturing" as though I haven't been regularly critical of both mainstream media, Twitter/Facebook, and Joe Rogan.
But you're still ignoring important differences between a single person and an entire platform.
What all of CNN carries on its network is vast and it's still bad that they have, say, Richard Spencer on there for eight minutes. But that's eight minutes out of an hour segment out of a 24-hour/7-days a week channel.
When Joe Rogan has Richard Spencer on, it's just Richard Spencer for several hours, and that's the whole show!
With Twitter, it's all of fucking Twitter. The problems that we have with Twitter are (among other things) its promotional algorithms and moderation practices, but it is not just platforming alt-right shitheads. And again, many people are using Twitter out of necessity, and were it possible for them to be making a living without it, they would quit it in a heartbeat. But the platform's reach is vast and it is not under the purview of a single person - like Joe Rogan's podcast.
It is widely agreed that Joe Rogan operates as a gateway to the alt-right! He's considered a "leading member of the Intellectual Dark Web!" While some of Fox News' pundits might also be considered shepards to alt-right thought, the MSM in general cannot! The algorithms behind YouTube and Twitter promote alt-right thought, but that is not at all the same as an individual choosing to promote them! Stop denying Joe Rogan's culpability in all this!
I'm curious. If Fox News gave a 20 minute prime time slot to a left leaning/liberal/democrat without any sort of interruption or member of fox news to sit there any pepper them with loaded questions, would we have a problem with that as well?
That sort of seems to be the crux of the discussion. Is it better to wade into an echo chamber to get a voice we believe is worth hearing into people's ears, or do we risk people sticking around in the echo chamber if we open that door?
Regardless of what people think of Rogan in particular, I think this is a very interesting question that I'm not sure about. Youtube algorithms certainly cause problems, but I'd be curious to see a study about something like my Fox News hypothetical.
Yes, yes we would. Or should. I pointed this out on the first page with Warren's argument on this very subject. By appearing on a show or a network, you are monetarily supporting them and thus feeding them money to engage their actual agenda. When you appear on Fox News, you are helping fund Fox News' propaganda apparatus.
I'm curious. If Fox News gave a 20 minute prime time slot to a left leaning/liberal/democrat without any sort of interruption or member of fox news to sit there any pepper them with loaded questions, would we have a problem with that as well?
That sort of seems to be the crux of the discussion. Is it better to wade into an echo chamber to get a voice we believe is worth hearing into people's ears, or do we risk people sticking around in the echo chamber if we open that door?
Regardless of what people think of Rogan in particular, I think this is a very interesting question that I'm not sure about. Youtube algorithms certainly cause problems, but I'd be curious to see a study about something like my Fox News hypothetical.
Yes, yes we would. Or should. I pointed this out on the first page with Warren's argument on this very subject. By appearing on a show or a network, you are monetarily supporting them and thus feeding them money to engage their actual agenda. When you appear on Fox News, you are helping fund Fox News' propaganda apparatus.
So when Jon Oliver does his Catheter Cowboy ad buys in an attempt to get a message out there, we should frown upon that? I'm not sure I agree. I also don't think fox News would benefit monetarily a lot from giving an ad free short segment in between programs to a democrat but maybe I am missing some other factor? I can't imagine a ton of dems would tune in and then stick around to watch tucker yell at people.
Everyone trying themselves in knots to defend Rogan so they can defend Bernie is one of the reasons this is harmful btw
Is this kinda just a blanket accusation to anyone or do you have anyone in mind? Virtue signaling to people who agree with you that your side is right is empty. This post is glorified pom poms.
You for one.
Care to elaborate how I am tying myself into knots to defend Rogan?
First page you claimed all media sucks and unless its devoted to actual pedophilia or Nazis it was all fine. Then you tried to equate Rogan with "shock jocks" and equated his show with the Breakfast Club. Then it became he wasn't really political, he just likes some conspiracy theories as if that wasn't central to the alt-right. You repeatedly claimed he wasn't alt right to try to blunt the criticism despite his transphobia, racism, sexism and routine hosting of Nazis.
I honestly can't imagine you think you're successfully fooling anyone.
1) is still true all media is pretty bad. If you think the comparative harm of Rogan talking to everyone is worse than news orgs that pushed for war in the middle east, sorry I disagree.
2) Rogan is a shock jock and the breakfast club also trucks in the same kind of space
3) I never said he wasn't political and actually said he seems to be some middle of the road libertarian and that his views were kinda shit.
Conspiracy theories aren't an alt right thing. I don't know how you could make a statement when vaccines are right there.
4) I said no one had evidence he was alt right and saying shitty things does not make you alt right.
So again I have not defended Rogan. The main stream media has tons of people they actually employ with some of those(transphobia, racism, sexism and routine hosting of Nazis) ideals. I don't see you calling for people to not show up on CNN or MSNBC or some of the left leaning podcasts.
You're literally defending in this exact post because you know if Rogan is alt right its bad for Bernie to have gone on his show.
So the rest was a gish gallop attempt? I don't agree with your assessment of Rogan as alt right and if your line is that anyone who disagrees with you is defending Rogan then sorry it's a dumb line and is again a virtue signal that the only path forward is your own despite what others provide as examples of him hosting every stripe of the spectrum.
Treating the alt-right as equivalent to other "stripes of the spectrum" is the fucking problem. Throwing out phrases you don't seem to understand ("gish gallop" and "virtue signal") doesn't obscure that.
Anyone who posts a twitter hot take about Bernie going on Joe's show is swimming in a sea of shit to demand Bernie clean under his finger nails.
This is not 'twisting in knots to defend Joe'. In fact, it is not a defense of Joe at all.
This is acknowledging the fact that virtually all media is complicit in the alt-right hate machine.
Indeed they are, what they aren't is entirely the same scope or having the same methods. CNN and Fox News are cable networks and they aren't all identical. As I said upthread, CNN does have low levels of controversy then Rogan does with guests and hosts who go overboard, Glenn Beck being the poster boy. Once he went over that line he was gone, while Alex Jones getting sued by Sandy Hook survivors and McInnes being investigated by the FBI aren't for Rogan. Fox News is Fox News. Rogan wishes he had their influence on the media.
If you believe that twitter is too big to ignore, but Joe Rogan is not. Then you have to show that Joe is having a larger impact for the Alt-right than his size would suggest.
Twitter is a social media platform which is immensely vital for spreading media instantaneously while being a worse conduit for the Alt-Right/White Supremacy. Rogan hasn't got the positives of the former to compete head to head, but does work with them to normalise the latter in his own space. Which is obscure, yet very popular for his niche in podcasting. His size is immaterial, it's the affect and he can influence many, many people with his podcasts. Including the Alt-Right, as Hedgie's article shows.
If you agree with that oft posted article, and Rogan is a soft entry point to Alt-right radicalization, then that makes his show the perfect place to send a leftist to stop listeners from entering the alt right sphere.
If you truly believe that, then you should be cheering every time someone from the left gets on there and turns a few back around. The left should be flooding Rogan's show with reasonable voices to convert the convertible.
It's not worth it, Rogan would need to increase his left guests in significant to do this and he has less incentive due to his base likes his conservative material. This is Rogan's decision, which he's made clear who he wants his audience to be, and its not us. Bernie appearing on the show will not do anything significant about this. It's a drop in the bucket to the channel's operation. He'd need to appear with his other left associates routinely to have the smallest effect, and they're not going to do it they've got a campaign to run.
I'm curious. If Fox News gave a 20 minute prime time slot to a left leaning/liberal/democrat without any sort of interruption or member of fox news to sit there any pepper them with loaded questions, would we have a problem with that as well?
That sort of seems to be the crux of the discussion. Is it better to wade into an echo chamber to get a voice we believe is worth hearing into people's ears, or do we risk people sticking around in the echo chamber if we open that door?
Regardless of what people think of Rogan in particular, I think this is a very interesting question that I'm not sure about. Youtube algorithms certainly cause problems, but I'd be curious to see a study about something like my Fox News hypothetical.
Bernie did this and mostly the same folks who hated him doing Rogan's podcast hated it. The idea as I understand it is that those people(the audience) are not to be talked to because they are brain washed.
If you agree with that oft posted article, and Rogan is a soft entry point to Alt-right radicalization, then that makes his show the perfect place to send a leftist to stop listeners from entering the alt right sphere.
If you truly believe that, then you should be cheering every time someone from the left gets on there and turns a few back around. The left should be flooding Rogan's show with reasonable voices to convert the convertible.
It's not worth it, Rogan would need to increase his left guests in significant to do this and he has less incentive due to his base likes his conservative material. This is Rogan's decision, which he's made clear who he wants his audience to be, and its not us. Bernie appearing on the show will not do anything significant about this. It's a drop in the bucket to the channel's operation. He'd need to appear with his other left associates routinely to have the smallest effect, and they're not going to do it they've got a campaign to run.
What are you basing this on? A quick glance at his recent guests shows way more left leaning folk than right leaning folk as far as I can tell. What's a proper ratio here? These are genuine questions, it seems like Rogan's fans and people who don't watch Rogan's show have a very different view of what the show is trying to accomplish and I'm not certain who is actually more accurate.
Everyone trying themselves in knots to defend Rogan so they can defend Bernie is one of the reasons this is harmful btw
Is this kinda just a blanket accusation to anyone or do you have anyone in mind? Virtue signaling to people who agree with you that your side is right is empty. This post is glorified pom poms.
You for one.
Care to elaborate how I am tying myself into knots to defend Rogan?
First page you claimed all media sucks and unless its devoted to actual pedophilia or Nazis it was all fine. Then you tried to equate Rogan with "shock jocks" and equated his show with the Breakfast Club. Then it became he wasn't really political, he just likes some conspiracy theories as if that wasn't central to the alt-right. You repeatedly claimed he wasn't alt right to try to blunt the criticism despite his transphobia, racism, sexism and routine hosting of Nazis.
I honestly can't imagine you think you're successfully fooling anyone.
1) is still true all media is pretty bad. If you think the comparative harm of Rogan talking to everyone is worse than news orgs that pushed for war in the middle east, sorry I disagree.
2) Rogan is a shock jock and the breakfast club also trucks in the same kind of space
3) I never said he wasn't political and actually said he seems to be some middle of the road libertarian and that his views were kinda shit.
Conspiracy theories aren't an alt right thing. I don't know how you could make a statement when vaccines are right there.
4) I said no one had evidence he was alt right and saying shitty things does not make you alt right.
So again I have not defended Rogan. The main stream media has tons of people they actually employ with some of those(transphobia, racism, sexism and routine hosting of Nazis) ideals. I don't see you calling for people to not show up on CNN or MSNBC or some of the left leaning podcasts.
You're literally defending in this exact post because you know if Rogan is alt right its bad for Bernie to have gone on his show.
So the rest was a gish gallop attempt? I don't agree with your assessment of Rogan as alt right and if your line is that anyone who disagrees with you is defending Rogan then sorry it's a dumb line and is again a virtue signal that the only path forward is your own despite what others provide as examples of him hosting every stripe of the spectrum.
Treating the alt-right as equivalent to other "stripes of the spectrum" is the fucking problem. Throwing out phrases you don't seem to understand ("gish gallop" and "virtue signal") doesn't obscure that.
Gish Gallop is a technique, named after the creationist Duane Gish who employed it, whereby someone argues a cause by hurling as many different half-truths and no-truths into a very short space of time so that their opponent cannot hope to combat each point in real time.
Applies to what you attempted to do there by misrepresenting me and just tossing a bunch of half truths.
Virtue Signaling is the action or practice of publicly expressing opinions or sentiments intended to demonstrate one's good character or the moral correctness of one's position on a particular issue
Everyone trying themselves in knots to defend Rogan so they can defend Bernie is one of the reasons this is harmful btw
As to this
Treating the alt-right as equivalent to other "stripes of the spectrum" is the fucking problem.
If you wanna rail about that then fine I dont particularly like that they exist either but it doesn't mean people with an audience who talk to them are alt right by association. We would be left with no news or talk shows that would be clean enough for you.
We drag Jimmy Fallon cause he had Trump on and was nice to him.
Joe Rogan has on white supremacists and conspiracy theorists, and isn't just nice, he finds ways to frame them as having good points on some stuff.
However I don't really drag movie stars for hitting Fallon's show and not giving him shit for the Trump interview. It's part of a horribly corrupt machine those folks have to work with.
If you agree with that oft posted article, and Rogan is a soft entry point to Alt-right radicalization, then that makes his show the perfect place to send a leftist to stop listeners from entering the alt right sphere.
If you truly believe that, then you should be cheering every time someone from the left gets on there and turns a few back around. The left should be flooding Rogan's show with reasonable voices to convert the convertible.
It's not worth it, Rogan would need to increase his left guests in significant to do this and he has less incentive due to his base likes his conservative material. This is Rogan's decision, which he's made clear who he wants his audience to be, and its not us. Bernie appearing on the show will not do anything significant about this. It's a drop in the bucket to the channel's operation. He'd need to appear with his other left associates routinely to have the smallest effect, and they're not going to do it they've got a campaign to run.
What are you basing this on? A quick glance at his recent guests shows way more left leaning folk than right leaning folk as far as I can tell. What's a proper ratio here? These are genuine questions, it seems like Rogan's fans and people who don't watch Rogan's show have a very different view of what the show is trying to accomplish and I'm not certain who is actually more accurate.
The fact that Rogan felt he had to bring Jack Dorsey back on to face right wing criticism of how he was running Twitter shows where he (and his listener base) stand.
I've never heard someone on this forum argue that a corporation has less culpability for its actions than an individual does.
It is certainly a take.
Despite what Mitt Romney may have told you, corporations are not people.
Holding a person responsible for their actions is different than holding a corporation responsible for their actions.
And at the same time, we sure as shit have taken the heads of corporations, like Jack Dorsey and Mark Zuckerburg, to task for what their corporations have done! People call them out all the time for shit that occurs on their platforms!
Joe Rogan should be held accountable for what occurs on his podcast. Why this is so difficult for you to accept is beyond me.
This piece talks about Rogan's ties to the alt-right, and how his own views mesh in. The interesting point comes at the end, however:
In a February interview with Twitter’s Jack Dorsey, Rogan reflected on how his podcast has grown to the point where, unhappily, people now have expectations of him. “I didn’t fucking plan this. So now all of the sudden there’s this signal that I’m sending out to millions and millions of people, and then people are like, ‘Well, you have a responsibility,’ and I’m like, ‘Oh, great. Well, I didn’t want that.’ ” Later he went on, “There’s certain people that I’ll have on, whether it’s Alex Jones or anyone that’s controversial, where people who get fucking mad. ‘Why are you giving this person a platform?’ OK. Hmm. I didn’t think about it that way, and I don’t think that’s what I’m doing. I think I’m talking to people, and you can listen.”
This wasn’t just Rogan complaining about his success. This was a mission statement: a vision of a truly independent podcast in which the host is immune to pressure from his listeners, in which he is responsible to no one except himself, and his show’s priorities are guided exclusively by his own catholic interests. I can get behind this vision, even if Rogan’s interests do not match my own.
The YouTube stream of the Jack Dorsey podcast got 13,000 likes and 86,000 dislikes. Viewers thought Rogan had betrayed them by failing to press Dorsey about why various right-wing figures had been deplatformed while people such as Kathy Griffin got to stay. One YouTube commenter wrote, “wtf is going on here!” “Censorship of conservatives is evil and you didn’t call him out. Coward,” wrote another.
For the entire following week, Rogan fretted on air about the blowback. He spent hours overcompensating by dwelling on the questions that he might have asked Dorsey had he bothered to prepare for the initial conversation. Far from hewing to his “it’s my show, listen or don’t” philosophy, Rogan seemed afraid—as if he had realized that the listeners who have made him a rich and influential man will tune out as soon as he stops playing to their political biases.
Inevitably, like a mad scientist desperately trying to appease the monster of his own creation, Rogan gave in to his listeners and rebooked Dorsey for another episode, a month after the first. For 3½ hours, Rogan and Tim Pool pressed Dorsey and Twitter exec Vijaya Gadde on their reasons for banning Yiannopoulos, Alex Jones, Gavin McInnes, Jacob Wohl, and Chuck Johnson, among others; on the importance of allowing conservatives to misgender people online; and on the injustice of perma-banning the right-wing trolls and anti-intellectual intellectuals to whom Rogan is indebted for his late-career success. It was a tough interview, though one unlikely to be appreciated outside the Breitbart set. Finally, we saw what the third eye adorning Rogan’s mug on his podcast art really sees: fear.
The fact that he took alt-right blowback on Dorsey seriously shows that he knows where his bread is buttered.
That whole thing is like a pile of nonsense seeking out a point. It started with a premise and is trying really hard to justify it.
Much like a lot of people in this thread.
I know this because i listened to that entire podcast. What you had was a couple people trying to work this out, and speaking mainly to how complex the entire issue was. Neither had answers, and the discussion eventually moved on as it tends to do with any sane human beings trying to converse with other human beings and not score political points.
The vast dark matter of the electorate is at the core of any political campaign, and that's who Sanders is speaking to in this hour-long interview, and judging from the comments, he's reaching them. As Luke Savage writes in Jacobin, those comments are full of undecided and even GOP-leaning voters who found Sanders' message compelling.
I would still like to see more wonkiness from Sanders, a little more of Elizabeth Warren's detailed policy proposals, but that said, I was seriously impressed by this interview.
Disclosure: I am a donor to both Sanders' and Warren's campaigns.
“This was pretty great. Learned more about Bernie from this than any other source in the past 5+ years . . .”
“I consider myself a Republican, but I actually agree with a lot of what Bernie said here.”
“I have changed my mind on this man. Really great interview. This man needs to be heard.”
“I’ve watched media tell me this guy was a nut for years. After this interview I feel like he might be onto something.”
“I consider myself the exact opposite of a socialist, but Bernie is onto something taxing Wall Street 0.5% for every trade. It would create a more stable stock market as well as creating more revenue for this country . . . Plus, we already bailed them out sooooooo . . .”
“I was on the fence about which Dem I was voting for till I watched this video. Thanks Joe for asking great questions and giving Bernie time to answer thoroughly.”
“Bernie is only labeled as radical by a hostile media bought by the same special interests he wants to remove from power.”
If he's reaching these people, this seems valuable. If he's only occasionally having the alt righters on and then the left leaners are able to reach them, isn't that positive?
I'm curious. If Fox News gave a 20 minute prime time slot to a left leaning/liberal/democrat without any sort of interruption or member of fox news to sit there any pepper them with loaded questions, would we have a problem with that as well?
That sort of seems to be the crux of the discussion. Is it better to wade into an echo chamber to get a voice we believe is worth hearing into people's ears, or do we risk people sticking around in the echo chamber if we open that door?
Regardless of what people think of Rogan in particular, I think this is a very interesting question that I'm not sure about. Youtube algorithms certainly cause problems, but I'd be curious to see a study about something like my Fox News hypothetical.
Yes, yes we would. Or should. I pointed this out on the first page with Warren's argument on this very subject. By appearing on a show or a network, you are monetarily supporting them and thus feeding them money to engage their actual agenda. When you appear on Fox News, you are helping fund Fox News' propaganda apparatus.
So when Jon Oliver does his Catheter Cowboy ad buys in an attempt to get a message out there, we should frown upon that? I'm not sure I agree. I also don't think fox News would benefit monetarily a lot from giving an ad free short segment in between programs to a democrat but maybe I am missing some other factor? I can't imagine a ton of dems would tune in and then stick around to watch tucker yell at people.
Warren makes the case pretty clearly in those tweets on the second page. Look, we know how you kill right-wing media. It's how we killed O'Reilley. You attack the revenue. It doesn't matter how good a little nazi propagandist you are, if you ain't making money, you ain't got a show. You go after their ad revenue and they die. And you do that by going around going "Is this really the kind of shit you want your brand associated with?" By appearing on these shows you not only provide them with views and content, you also provide them with cover. "See, we aren't white supremacist propaganda calling for genocide, we've got democrats on too. Fair and balanced!"
If every ten guests David Letterman had had on a white supremacist and treated them exactly the same as all the other guests, gentle kidding and plugging their new book, that wouldn’t make Letterman a Nazi, but it would encourage some Letterman viewers to think of white supremacy as a normal part of the political spectrum, and some of them would go read the book and be lost. It doesn’t really matter who the other nine guests are. And the only value of going on his show if you were someone who cared about that would be to say, “How can you do this?”
I mean, if you live in the US white supremacy already is a normal part of the political spectrum. There isn't one media figure, show host or whatever who can either normalize white supremacy or see to it that it's properly marginalized.
And yet the way we get to marginalizing white supremacy is for media figures to choose to not support it. No, there's no one person who will change things on their own, because it's a collective effort.
I think you're putting the cart before the horse there.
Posts
that's why there's no point, more than anything
drake no: purity testing the candidates
drake yes: purity testing the voters
That article is talking about someone who is making an argument based on the youtube algorithm, not actual statistics of users who might show up to hear a left leaning person talk and then get swayed to the alt right instead, right? And I don't see it mentioning if people engage with the left through Rogan in the same way. I agree that the youtube algorithm is a problem, but I'm not sure that means left leaning voices shouldn't try to get their ideas into the mix.
You for one.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Someone in the press needs to ask Bernie and his staff this, I'm curious about the response we'd get.
Because he has no interest in doing so. Bernie's an outlier here.
Bernie's got a base which have segments which are vulnerable to Rogan, same with candidates like Marianne Williamson and Yang. Bernie and his staff are counting on this, it's why they're doing this while other candidates like Elisabeth Warren aren't. I don't know why you should be giving Rogan the benefit of a doubt concerning the evidence presented against him here and the other thread. I would like someone to do research on that with his program like you're asking, too.
Bernie's a controversial yet fascinating person, him interacting wth Rogan would be an interesting experience - just like with Musk.
Care to elaborate how I am tying myself into knots to defend Rogan?
It isn't but if you want to think it is I'm not particularly bothered
I think people who listen to Rogan would probably disagree that Rogan is only an entry point for the alt right. If we assume that all those names I'm definitely not going to sit here and google are actually leftists, that seems like quite a bit of people compared to the few conservative names that get brought up, though the conservative/alt right names are ones I've heard of more often.
I don't necessarily think Joe Rogan has an interest in drawing people to a particular political spectrum, but rather just likes to talk to prominent people and hear their ideas, regardless of what those ideas might be. Whether or not this is a good thing is certainly up for debate of course.
First page you claimed all media sucks and unless its devoted to actual pedophilia or Nazis it was all fine. Then you tried to equate Rogan with "shock jocks" and equated his show with the Breakfast Club. Then it became he wasn't really political, he just likes some conspiracy theories as if that wasn't central to the alt-right. You repeatedly claimed he wasn't alt right to try to blunt the criticism despite his transphobia, racism, sexism and routine hosting of Nazis.
I honestly can't imagine you think you're successfully fooling anyone.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
The fact that he took alt-right blowback on Dorsey seriously shows that he knows where his bread is buttered.
Having never watched the rogan podcast, but having read a lot of the comments in the rogan subreddit about various guests, I don't think his audience views any part of that as a normal part of the political spectrum.
I see what you're saying, but I think Letterman is a very different thing from this long form podcast type thing, especially because the host is bringing up all kinds of weird stuff all the time. It doesn't come across as mainstream normality to me and I don't think his viewers see it that way either.
And looking at a list of his previous guests, he seems to have quite a few people on there that I like a lot, though a huge number seem to be comedians, which makes sense.
1) is still true all media is pretty bad. If you think the comparative harm of Rogan talking to everyone is worse than news orgs that pushed for war in the middle east, sorry I disagree.
2) Rogan is a shock jock and the breakfast club also trucks in the same kind of space
3) I never said he wasn't political and actually said he seems to be some middle of the road libertarian and that his views were kinda shit.
Conspiracy theories aren't an alt right thing. I don't know how you could make a statement when vaccines are right there.
4) I said no one had evidence he was alt right and saying shitty things does not make you alt right.
So again I have not defended Rogan. The main stream media has tons of people they actually employ with some of those(transphobia, racism, sexism and routine hosting of Nazis) ideals. I don't see you calling for people to not show up on CNN or MSNBC or some of the left leaning podcasts.
Can Tucker Carlson's audience be persuaded? Sure, why not. It's an infinite universe after all. Is Joe Rogan's audience likely much more persuadable in the finite amount of time between now and the elections than that of Carlson? Oh hell yeah. Additionally, Joe is far less likely to ask ludicrously hostile and loaded questions than Tucker, and Tucker's show is edited while Joe's podcast seems to be a live action trainwreck. These are all elements that enter into deciding whether going on the show is worth it.
You're literally defending in this exact post because you know if Rogan is alt right its bad for Bernie to have gone on his show.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
I mean, if you live in the US white supremacy already is a normal part of the political spectrum. There isn't one media figure, show host or whatever who can either normalize white supremacy or see to it that it's properly marginalized.
You're conflating two different positions:
One which pushes back on the accusation that Rogan is alt right
Two which argues that regardless of Rogan's personal politics Sanders made the right decision to go onto his show
And yet the way we get to marginalizing white supremacy is for media figures to choose to not support it. No, there's no one person who will change things on their own, because it's a collective effort.
So the rest was a gish gallop attempt? I don't agree with your assessment of Rogan as alt right and if your line is that anyone who disagrees with you is defending Rogan then sorry it's a dumb line and is again a virtue signal that the only path forward is your own despite what others provide as examples of him hosting every stripe of the spectrum.
That sort of seems to be the crux of the discussion. Is it better to wade into an echo chamber to get a voice we believe is worth hearing into people's ears, or do we risk people sticking around in the echo chamber if we open that door?
Regardless of what people think of Rogan in particular, I think this is a very interesting question that I'm not sure about. Youtube algorithms certainly cause problems, but I'd be curious to see a study about something like my Fox News hypothetical.
Bernie did this and mostly the same folks who hated him doing Rogan's podcast hated it. The idea as I understand it is that those people(the audience) are not to be talked to because they are brain washed.
This is not 'twisting in knots to defend Joe'. In fact, it is not a defense of Joe at all.
This is acknowledging the fact that virtually all media is complicit in the alt-right hate machine.
If you believe that twitter is too big to ignore, but Joe Rogan is not. Then you have to show that Joe is having a larger impact for the Alt-right than his size would suggest.
If you agree with that oft posted article, and Rogan is a soft entry point to Alt-right radicalization, then that makes his show the perfect place to send a leftist to stop listeners from entering the alt right sphere.
If you truly believe that, then you should be cheering every time someone from the left gets on there and turns a few back around. The left should be flooding Rogan's show with reasonable voices to convert the convertible.
You're calling my stance "elitist posturing" as though I haven't been regularly critical of both mainstream media, Twitter/Facebook, and Joe Rogan.
But you're still ignoring important differences between a single person and an entire platform.
What all of CNN carries on its network is vast and it's still bad that they have, say, Richard Spencer on there for eight minutes. But that's eight minutes out of an hour segment out of a 24-hour/7-days a week channel.
When Joe Rogan has Richard Spencer on, it's just Richard Spencer for several hours, and that's the whole show!
With Twitter, it's all of fucking Twitter. The problems that we have with Twitter are (among other things) its promotional algorithms and moderation practices, but it is not just platforming alt-right shitheads. And again, many people are using Twitter out of necessity, and were it possible for them to be making a living without it, they would quit it in a heartbeat. But the platform's reach is vast and it is not under the purview of a single person - like Joe Rogan's podcast.
It is widely agreed that Joe Rogan operates as a gateway to the alt-right! He's considered a "leading member of the Intellectual Dark Web!" While some of Fox News' pundits might also be considered shepards to alt-right thought, the MSM in general cannot! The algorithms behind YouTube and Twitter promote alt-right thought, but that is not at all the same as an individual choosing to promote them! Stop denying Joe Rogan's culpability in all this!
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Yes, yes we would. Or should. I pointed this out on the first page with Warren's argument on this very subject. By appearing on a show or a network, you are monetarily supporting them and thus feeding them money to engage their actual agenda. When you appear on Fox News, you are helping fund Fox News' propaganda apparatus.
It is certainly a take.
So when Jon Oliver does his Catheter Cowboy ad buys in an attempt to get a message out there, we should frown upon that? I'm not sure I agree. I also don't think fox News would benefit monetarily a lot from giving an ad free short segment in between programs to a democrat but maybe I am missing some other factor? I can't imagine a ton of dems would tune in and then stick around to watch tucker yell at people.
Treating the alt-right as equivalent to other "stripes of the spectrum" is the fucking problem. Throwing out phrases you don't seem to understand ("gish gallop" and "virtue signal") doesn't obscure that.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Indeed they are, what they aren't is entirely the same scope or having the same methods. CNN and Fox News are cable networks and they aren't all identical. As I said upthread, CNN does have low levels of controversy then Rogan does with guests and hosts who go overboard, Glenn Beck being the poster boy. Once he went over that line he was gone, while Alex Jones getting sued by Sandy Hook survivors and McInnes being investigated by the FBI aren't for Rogan. Fox News is Fox News. Rogan wishes he had their influence on the media.
Twitter is a social media platform which is immensely vital for spreading media instantaneously while being a worse conduit for the Alt-Right/White Supremacy. Rogan hasn't got the positives of the former to compete head to head, but does work with them to normalise the latter in his own space. Which is obscure, yet very popular for his niche in podcasting. His size is immaterial, it's the affect and he can influence many, many people with his podcasts. Including the Alt-Right, as Hedgie's article shows.
It's not worth it, Rogan would need to increase his left guests in significant to do this and he has less incentive due to his base likes his conservative material. This is Rogan's decision, which he's made clear who he wants his audience to be, and its not us. Bernie appearing on the show will not do anything significant about this. It's a drop in the bucket to the channel's operation. He'd need to appear with his other left associates routinely to have the smallest effect, and they're not going to do it they've got a campaign to run.
@SniperGuy and just cause it was a great moment during a flippin fox news town hall Bernie gotapplause from the crowd about medicare for all.
Applies to what you attempted to do there by misrepresenting me and just tossing a bunch of half truths.
Applies to this quote:
As to this
If you wanna rail about that then fine I dont particularly like that they exist either but it doesn't mean people with an audience who talk to them are alt right by association. We would be left with no news or talk shows that would be clean enough for you.
Joe Rogan has on white supremacists and conspiracy theorists, and isn't just nice, he finds ways to frame them as having good points on some stuff.
However I don't really drag movie stars for hitting Fallon's show and not giving him shit for the Trump interview. It's part of a horribly corrupt machine those folks have to work with.
The fact that Rogan felt he had to bring Jack Dorsey back on to face right wing criticism of how he was running Twitter shows where he (and his listener base) stand.
Despite what Mitt Romney may have told you, corporations are not people.
Holding a person responsible for their actions is different than holding a corporation responsible for their actions.
And at the same time, we sure as shit have taken the heads of corporations, like Jack Dorsey and Mark Zuckerburg, to task for what their corporations have done! People call them out all the time for shit that occurs on their platforms!
Joe Rogan should be held accountable for what occurs on his podcast. Why this is so difficult for you to accept is beyond me.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
That whole thing is like a pile of nonsense seeking out a point. It started with a premise and is trying really hard to justify it.
Much like a lot of people in this thread.
I know this because i listened to that entire podcast. What you had was a couple people trying to work this out, and speaking mainly to how complex the entire issue was. Neither had answers, and the discussion eventually moved on as it tends to do with any sane human beings trying to converse with other human beings and not score political points.
Which, is kind of ironic actually.
I found this article interesting: https://boingboing.net/2019/08/08/electoral-dark-matter.html
If he's reaching these people, this seems valuable. If he's only occasionally having the alt righters on and then the left leaners are able to reach them, isn't that positive?
Warren makes the case pretty clearly in those tweets on the second page. Look, we know how you kill right-wing media. It's how we killed O'Reilley. You attack the revenue. It doesn't matter how good a little nazi propagandist you are, if you ain't making money, you ain't got a show. You go after their ad revenue and they die. And you do that by going around going "Is this really the kind of shit you want your brand associated with?" By appearing on these shows you not only provide them with views and content, you also provide them with cover. "See, we aren't white supremacist propaganda calling for genocide, we've got democrats on too. Fair and balanced!"
I think you're putting the cart before the horse there.
Im still catching up onthe thread but I havent seen a single person defend Rogan so far.
Anyway, views are up to 5.5 million on youtube