* eye roll. *
Hey guys, news flash, just because you dont agree with someone, even if their views can be taken as egregious it doesnt make them nazis.
Some people have shit ideas. Some people have shit ideas mixed with good idea. Some people have good ideas. Turns out people are people.
You dont "shock" anyone into action by calling people nazis. All you do is dilute the term. Considering that term is representative of some of the worst evil the world ever faced, we probably want to save that use until there are...you know...actual nazis.
Nazis like Gavin McInness, founder of the Proud Boys? Rogan's had him as a guest. Several times.
And also denounced his points, rascism, nazism, proud boys, and other things numerous times on his podcast as well. Or do you think that didnt come up in his 3 hour convo with Cornell West?
Did he do it to their face when they made outlandish claims or does he nod along with them while they are there and then challenge them in a totally different show with different guests?
Honestly dont know as it looks like the last time he was on was before i started watching/listening to the podcasts. Though i have gone back to listen to other older ones, i never felt the need to listen to this one.
However, knowing the "format" its entirely possible that nothing or substance was discussed OR that Gavin downplayed certain things to Rogan's face. Which, I've seen that happen too.
iirc the second and last podcast McInnes was on (feb '17) he had only recently founded proud boys and Joe Rogan was unaware of them. Most of the nazi shit McInnes has said and done has happened in the last two years, after his appearance on Rogan. So it's somewhat unfair to fault Rogan for not challenging him at the time.
Note them defending the proud boy stuff as just poorly thought out jokes stuff.
Then spends time deflecting blame as much as possible.
until now we're talking about society maaaannn, and how folks like us, right here in this forum, are the problem.
Just totally glossing over shit, and weed babbling into new topics that are irrespective of the concern that he's introduced tons of folks to a white supremacist movement. That again, they portrayed as just jokes taken too far.
I just listened to that and saw nothing in there about Gavin McInness making jokes and not being sincere. What lines, specifically, are you referring to? The main part that stuck out to me was "[Gavin] fucked up when he started that group and he fucked up when he was calling for violence."
Radicalization is a funnel. Is Joe Rogan’s show the narrow part of the funnel? No, it’s pretty wide. But it’s still part of the funnel, and the fewer people who get into the funnel to begin with, the better.
It’s one thing to dip into the funnel and try to convince people to exit out the wide end. But it sounds like Bernie wasn’t preaching anti-alt right, he was just preaching his standard stump message. You can think non-whites are subhuman and also be in favor of higher taxes on the rich. Bernie may very well get some Rogan fans to vote for him; but he may also be paying for that by dumping some Bernie fans into the funnel.
Radicalization isn't a funnel, it's a sieve. Hateful rhetoric will catch the attention of maladjusted losers with no purpose or direction in life and leave them in a position to stand out as monsters, but it won't turn decent people with meaningful social connections into weird outcasts.
Meaning, these guys aren’t just trolls in basements—they’re people you probably know. Beirich calls them “millennial misogynists.” K says many are college-educated and articulate. They have day jobs and Tinder accounts. In the fall of 2017, white supremacist propaganda on college campuses more than tripled from the previous year, according to ADL data. No wonder, per the FBI, that hate crimes rose about 17 percent too. (This number is probably even a vast undercount, since hate crimes are notoriously underreported.)
Modern “male supremacy,” as the experts now call it, actually dates back to the 1970s, when men’s rights activists came about as a reaction to women’s liberation, explains Jessica Reaves, editorial director for the ADL’s Center on Extremism. This time, it’s not just feminism to blame—it’s Donald Trump. I didn’t say it. Nearly every expert I talked to did. “The 2016 campaign energized misogynistic groups,” says Reaves. “They heard very powerful men talking about women in a way we had never seen before in public.”
Many of today’s extremists hide their radical views under the guise of boy-next-door preppy looks and organize activities, like all-male hikes, to appear mainstream. “They have a product they want to sell and that product is hate,” says K. “When you see a bunch of normal-looking guys, you think, How bad could it be? But violent men don’t have to look any different from kind men.” Some of the ones K tracks post pictures with their kids and pets amid their calls for mass violence.
Is this the part that's supposed to refute what I wrote: "K says many are college-educated and articulate. They have day jobs and Tinder accounts." ?
Radicalization is a funnel. Is Joe Rogan’s show the narrow part of the funnel? No, it’s pretty wide. But it’s still part of the funnel, and the fewer people who get into the funnel to begin with, the better.
It’s one thing to dip into the funnel and try to convince people to exit out the wide end. But it sounds like Bernie wasn’t preaching anti-alt right, he was just preaching his standard stump message. You can think non-whites are subhuman and also be in favor of higher taxes on the rich. Bernie may very well get some Rogan fans to vote for him; but he may also be paying for that by dumping some Bernie fans into the funnel.
Radicalization isn't a funnel, it's a sieve. Hateful rhetoric will catch the attention of maladjusted losers with no purpose or direction in life and leave them in a position to stand out as monsters, but it won't turn decent people with meaningful social connections into weird outcasts.
Meaning, these guys aren’t just trolls in basements—they’re people you probably know. Beirich calls them “millennial misogynists.” K says many are college-educated and articulate. They have day jobs and Tinder accounts. In the fall of 2017, white supremacist propaganda on college campuses more than tripled from the previous year, according to ADL data. No wonder, per the FBI, that hate crimes rose about 17 percent too. (This number is probably even a vast undercount, since hate crimes are notoriously underreported.)
Modern “male supremacy,” as the experts now call it, actually dates back to the 1970s, when men’s rights activists came about as a reaction to women’s liberation, explains Jessica Reaves, editorial director for the ADL’s Center on Extremism. This time, it’s not just feminism to blame—it’s Donald Trump. I didn’t say it. Nearly every expert I talked to did. “The 2016 campaign energized misogynistic groups,” says Reaves. “They heard very powerful men talking about women in a way we had never seen before in public.”
Many of today’s extremists hide their radical views under the guise of boy-next-door preppy looks and organize activities, like all-male hikes, to appear mainstream. “They have a product they want to sell and that product is hate,” says K. “When you see a bunch of normal-looking guys, you think, How bad could it be? But violent men don’t have to look any different from kind men.” Some of the ones K tracks post pictures with their kids and pets amid their calls for mass violence.
Is this the part that's supposed to refute what I wrote: "K says many are college-educated and articulate. They have day jobs and Tinder accounts." ?
No, it's this part:
Many of today’s extremists hide their radical views under the guise of boy-next-door preppy looks and organize activities, like all-male hikes, to appear mainstream. “They have a product they want to sell and that product is hate,” says K. “When you see a bunch of normal-looking guys, you think, How bad could it be? But violent men don’t have to look any different from kind men.” Some of the ones K tracks post pictures with their kids and pets amid their calls for mass violence.
"Maladjusted losers", as you put it, by definition do not have the tools to fit into society. And it turns out that just having "meaningful social connections" doesn't stop someone from being a monster.
Honestly a lot of this sounds like it comes from a place of insecurity like even just hearing the occasional Shapiro interview between MMA and MDT anecdotes is a poison not to be bourn.
Add to that the weirdness of thinking youre somehow fighting it by refusing to even talk in the same spaces.
It seems very strange that listening to Bernie one time has zero chance of turning any of Rogan's followers off the path of the alt right, but Bernie's followers are so callow that listening to Joe Rogan once will send them spiraling into nazidom by the hundreds .
It feels like that doesn't comes from a place of rational thought, but instead of bias against Bernie and his followers.
Well, considering that this is a silly exaggeration as well as an argument that nobody is actually making I would agree it’s not coming from a place of rational thought.
Honestly a lot of this sounds like it comes from a place of insecurity like even just hearing the occasional Shapiro interview between MMA and MDT anecdotes is a poison not to be bourn.
Add to that the weirdness of thinking youre somehow fighting it by refusing to even talk in the same spaces.
So tell me - how much bigotry are we supposed to tolerate in the name of reaching out? How much racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, etc. are we supposed to just let slide as part of our efforts to bring people into the fold?
You're not tolerating the bigotry in order to reach out, youre reaching out to offer a better world view alongside bigotry. Stop just yelling that youre better and actually go in to the trenches as is were.
When leftists go on Rogan theyre ensuring his audience hears a message of economic and social justice as well as the various other more odious views that are presented by other guests. When liberals refuse to go on theyre just ensuring his audience hears less liberalism. Stop acting like being above it is a strategy.
It seems very strange that listening to Bernie one time has zero chance of turning any of Rogan's followers off the path of the alt right, but Bernie's followers are so callow that listening to Joe Rogan once will send them spiraling into nazidom by the hundreds .
It feels like that doesn't comes from a place of rational thought, but instead of bias against Bernie and his followers.
Well, considering that this is a silly exaggeration as well as an argument that nobody is actually making I would agree it’s not coming from a place of rational thought.
I agree that saying they would all end up as Nazis is an exaggeration. But I couldn't take another round of tut Turing from AH for not calling them bad enough names.
But as for the rest of it. I can point you to specific examples of posters claiming Bernie won't change the mind of a single Rogan listener but how Rogan will for Bernie supporters. So it's not actually an exaggeration at all.
Honestly a lot of this sounds like it comes from a place of insecurity like even just hearing the occasional Shapiro interview between MMA and MDT anecdotes is a poison not to be bourn.
Add to that the weirdness of thinking youre somehow fighting it by refusing to even talk in the same spaces.
So tell me - how much bigotry are we supposed to tolerate in the name of reaching out? How much racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, etc. are we supposed to just let slide as part of our efforts to bring people into the fold?
So if Bernie did an AMA on 8chan... no problems there?
I dont think it would be a very productive use of his time, but I dont think equating the Joe Rogan Experience to a child pornography outlet is very helpful to the discussion either.
What do liberals hope to accomplish by refusing to make their case on platforms like this?
Primarily: You don't want to give a viewer boost to really horrible platforms; you end up trading making your case for exposing the odious shit to a lot more people. It's arguable whether Rogan counts enough on either end but that's the idea.
This thread: "Guys no one is defending Joe Rogan" followed by pages on pages of defending Joe Rogan by saying his guests were not part of the Third Reich in the 1930s and 40s so they don't count an Nazis.
You can be moderates on racism if you want, but it doesn't change the fact that Rogan hosts white supremacists and Nazis, bangs the "actually reverse racism is the problem" drum, promotes conspiracy theories and says stuff like
What do liberals hope to accomplish by refusing to make their case on platforms like this?
To not give traffic and/or attention to questionable outlets, especially when there are numerous other outlets that reach a similar audience and don’t have the same baggage.
This thread: "Guys no one is defending Joe Rogan" followed by pages on pages of defending Joe Rogan by saying his guests were not part of the Third Reich in the 1930s and 40s so they don't count an Nazis.
You can be moderates on racism if you want, but it doesn't change the fact that Rogan hosts white supremacists and Nazis, bangs the "actually reverse racism is the problem" drum, promotes conspiracy theories and says stuff like
What do liberals hope to accomplish by refusing to make their case on platforms like this?
Primarily: You don't want to give a viewer boost to really horrible platforms; you end up trading making your case for exposing the odious shit to a lot more people. It's arguable whether Rogan counts enough on either end but that's the idea.
I mean sure if this was the White Power Hour (136 subscribers) thatd be one thing but this has a significantly larger audience than Pod save America
What do liberals hope to accomplish by refusing to make their case on platforms like this?
Primarily: You don't want to give a viewer boost to really horrible platforms; you end up trading making your case for exposing the odious shit to a lot more people. It's arguable whether Rogan counts enough on either end but that's the idea.
I mean sure if this was the White Power Hour (136 subscribers) thatd be one thing but this has a significantly larger audience than Pod save America
Radicalization is a funnel. Is Joe Rogan’s show the narrow part of the funnel? No, it’s pretty wide. But it’s still part of the funnel, and the fewer people who get into the funnel to begin with, the better.
It’s one thing to dip into the funnel and try to convince people to exit out the wide end. But it sounds like Bernie wasn’t preaching anti-alt right, he was just preaching his standard stump message. You can think non-whites are subhuman and also be in favor of higher taxes on the rich. Bernie may very well get some Rogan fans to vote for him; but he may also be paying for that by dumping some Bernie fans into the funnel.
Radicalization isn't a funnel, it's a sieve. Hateful rhetoric will catch the attention of maladjusted losers with no purpose or direction in life and leave them in a position to stand out as monsters, but it won't turn decent people with meaningful social connections into weird outcasts.
Meaning, these guys aren’t just trolls in basements—they’re people you probably know. Beirich calls them “millennial misogynists.” K says many are college-educated and articulate. They have day jobs and Tinder accounts. In the fall of 2017, white supremacist propaganda on college campuses more than tripled from the previous year, according to ADL data. No wonder, per the FBI, that hate crimes rose about 17 percent too. (This number is probably even a vast undercount, since hate crimes are notoriously underreported.)
Modern “male supremacy,” as the experts now call it, actually dates back to the 1970s, when men’s rights activists came about as a reaction to women’s liberation, explains Jessica Reaves, editorial director for the ADL’s Center on Extremism. This time, it’s not just feminism to blame—it’s Donald Trump. I didn’t say it. Nearly every expert I talked to did. “The 2016 campaign energized misogynistic groups,” says Reaves. “They heard very powerful men talking about women in a way we had never seen before in public.”
Many of today’s extremists hide their radical views under the guise of boy-next-door preppy looks and organize activities, like all-male hikes, to appear mainstream. “They have a product they want to sell and that product is hate,” says K. “When you see a bunch of normal-looking guys, you think, How bad could it be? But violent men don’t have to look any different from kind men.” Some of the ones K tracks post pictures with their kids and pets amid their calls for mass violence.
Is this the part that's supposed to refute what I wrote: "K says many are college-educated and articulate. They have day jobs and Tinder accounts." ?
No, it's this part:
Many of today’s extremists hide their radical views under the guise of boy-next-door preppy looks and organize activities, like all-male hikes, to appear mainstream. “They have a product they want to sell and that product is hate,” says K. “When you see a bunch of normal-looking guys, you think, How bad could it be? But violent men don’t have to look any different from kind men.” Some of the ones K tracks post pictures with their kids and pets amid their calls for mass violence.
"Maladjusted losers", as you put it, by definition do not have the tools to fit into society. And it turns out that just having "meaningful social connections" doesn't stop someone from being a monster.
Thanks for clarifying. I disagree with your contention that maladjusted losers do not have the tools to fit into society. Plenty of maladjusted people can "fit in" some or most of the time (in no small part because other people will adjust themselves in an attempt to get things to fit--I'm sure you're familiar with the "missing stair" analogy for social dynamics that develop around toxic people). I also disagree that the social connections these people have are meaningful, because to read about them these groups tend to be plagued by petty personality conflicts, backstabbing, delusions of grandeur, etc.
This thread: "Guys no one is defending Joe Rogan" followed by pages on pages of defending Joe Rogan by saying his guests were not part of the Third Reich in the 1930s and 40s so they don't count an Nazis.
You can be moderates on racism if you want, but it doesn't change the fact that Rogan hosts white supremacists and Nazis, bangs the "actually reverse racism is the problem" drum, promotes conspiracy theories and says stuff like
Nor is every shitty right wing grifter a nazi. This is barely even nuance.
I'm pretty sure the founder of the Proud Boys counts as a Nazi, though.
As best I can tell Rogan has had McInnes on his show exactly twice, once in 2015 - when, so far as I can tell, he was best known as "that dude what started Vice," - and once in early 2017, before anyone who was not deep in Left and/or Fascist Twitter knew who the fuck the Proud Boys were.
I haven't watched either of these episodes (I think I've seen about forty-five minutes of the JRE, total, over half of which was him talking about how he spent a fortune to get an ISDN line installed in 1995 so he could be a LPB in Quake and the remainder of which was him talking about how Trump was an idiot) so I can't comment on their content. But I pay pretty close attention to politics, and my general impression of McInnes around that point was that while he was a shithead, was not in the same league as Richard Spencer. If pressed I probably would have put him in the same bucket as O'Keefe: huge douchebag, but not a nazi.
This thread: "Guys no one is defending Joe Rogan" followed by pages on pages of defending Joe Rogan by saying his guests were not part of the Third Reich in the 1930s and 40s so they don't count an Nazis.
You can be moderates on racism if you want, but it doesn't change the fact that Rogan hosts white supremacists and Nazis, bangs the "actually reverse racism is the problem" drum, promotes conspiracy theories and says stuff like
Defining "defending" as anyone who disagrees with your interpretation and opinions on the topic isnpretty goosey, pants.
No, attempt to contradict or mitigate criticisms of a person is the definition of defending
The easy way to tell Im defending Joe Rogan is because I call him a vapid starfucker who doesnt really care about the values expressed on his show as long as theyre entertaining. Its a classic rhetorical defense.
Radicalization is a funnel. Is Joe Rogan’s show the narrow part of the funnel? No, it’s pretty wide. But it’s still part of the funnel, and the fewer people who get into the funnel to begin with, the better.
It’s one thing to dip into the funnel and try to convince people to exit out the wide end. But it sounds like Bernie wasn’t preaching anti-alt right, he was just preaching his standard stump message. You can think non-whites are subhuman and also be in favor of higher taxes on the rich. Bernie may very well get some Rogan fans to vote for him; but he may also be paying for that by dumping some Bernie fans into the funnel.
Radicalization isn't a funnel, it's a sieve. Hateful rhetoric will catch the attention of maladjusted losers with no purpose or direction in life and leave them in a position to stand out as monsters, but it won't turn decent people with meaningful social connections into weird outcasts.
Meaning, these guys aren’t just trolls in basements—they’re people you probably know. Beirich calls them “millennial misogynists.” K says many are college-educated and articulate. They have day jobs and Tinder accounts. In the fall of 2017, white supremacist propaganda on college campuses more than tripled from the previous year, according to ADL data. No wonder, per the FBI, that hate crimes rose about 17 percent too. (This number is probably even a vast undercount, since hate crimes are notoriously underreported.)
Modern “male supremacy,” as the experts now call it, actually dates back to the 1970s, when men’s rights activists came about as a reaction to women’s liberation, explains Jessica Reaves, editorial director for the ADL’s Center on Extremism. This time, it’s not just feminism to blame—it’s Donald Trump. I didn’t say it. Nearly every expert I talked to did. “The 2016 campaign energized misogynistic groups,” says Reaves. “They heard very powerful men talking about women in a way we had never seen before in public.”
Many of today’s extremists hide their radical views under the guise of boy-next-door preppy looks and organize activities, like all-male hikes, to appear mainstream. “They have a product they want to sell and that product is hate,” says K. “When you see a bunch of normal-looking guys, you think, How bad could it be? But violent men don’t have to look any different from kind men.” Some of the ones K tracks post pictures with their kids and pets amid their calls for mass violence.
Is this the part that's supposed to refute what I wrote: "K says many are college-educated and articulate. They have day jobs and Tinder accounts." ?
No, it's this part:
Many of today’s extremists hide their radical views under the guise of boy-next-door preppy looks and organize activities, like all-male hikes, to appear mainstream. “They have a product they want to sell and that product is hate,” says K. “When you see a bunch of normal-looking guys, you think, How bad could it be? But violent men don’t have to look any different from kind men.” Some of the ones K tracks post pictures with their kids and pets amid their calls for mass violence.
"Maladjusted losers", as you put it, by definition do not have the tools to fit into society. And it turns out that just having "meaningful social connections" doesn't stop someone from being a monster.
Thanks for clarifying. I disagree with your contention that maladjusted losers do not have the tools to fit into society. Plenty of maladjusted people can "fit in" some or most of the time (in no small part because other people will adjust themselves in an attempt to get things to fit--I'm sure you're familiar with the "missing stair" analogy for social dynamics that develop around toxic people). I also disagree that the social connections these people have are meaningful, because to read about them these groups tend to be plagued by petty personality conflicts, backstabbing, delusions of grandeur, etc.
"Missing stairs" tend to be less about people who "can't" fit in and more about people who "won't" fit in, in large part because they have social standing that allows them to force the group to conform to them. These sorts routinely are socially adroit as well - they know who they can and cannot abuse, which helps them hide their abuses.
This thread: "Guys no one is defending Joe Rogan" followed by pages on pages of defending Joe Rogan by saying his guests were not part of the Third Reich in the 1930s and 40s so they don't count an Nazis.
You can be moderates on racism if you want, but it doesn't change the fact that Rogan hosts white supremacists and Nazis, bangs the "actually reverse racism is the problem" drum, promotes conspiracy theories and says stuff like
Defining "defending" as anyone who disagrees with your interpretation and opinions on the topic isnpretty goosey, pants.
No, attempt to contradict or mitigate criticisms of a person is the definition of defending
The easy way to tell Im defending Joe Rogan is because I call him a vapid starfucker who doesnt really care about the values expressed on his show as long as theyre entertaining. Its a classic rhetorical defense.
It is, actually - lawyers refer to it as "putting the turd on the mantle". The idea is that you know you have a problematic issue you can't get around, so you play offense with it, putting it up yourself - and thus getting the ability to define how it's defined. You're calling Rogan a "vapid starfucker" to preclude the argument that he's not just picking his guests out of a sense of celebrity, but because he actually does agree with them.
The Liberal faction is in no danger of losing its numbers, they have news networks like MSNBC to replenish the ranks they don't need Rogan's help. The Far Left is not in this position, they require on alternative media like twitter and Left/Bread You Tube. This is why it's a desperate move by Bernie Sanders.
This thread: "Guys no one is defending Joe Rogan" followed by pages on pages of defending Joe Rogan by saying his guests were not part of the Third Reich in the 1930s and 40s so they don't count an Nazis.
You can be moderates on racism if you want, but it doesn't change the fact that Rogan hosts white supremacists and Nazis, bangs the "actually reverse racism is the problem" drum, promotes conspiracy theories and says stuff like
Defining "defending" as anyone who disagrees with your interpretation and opinions on the topic isnpretty goosey, pants.
No, attempt to contradict or mitigate criticisms of a person is the definition of defending
The easy way to tell Im defending Joe Rogan is because I call him a vapid starfucker who doesnt really care about the values expressed on his show as long as theyre entertaining. Its a classic rhetorical defense.
Yes. It's like saying Trump isn't really a racist he just wants to rile up voters. When you offer a better alternative, especially one that serves your rhetorical purpose, its defending someone.
This thread: "Guys no one is defending Joe Rogan" followed by pages on pages of defending Joe Rogan by saying his guests were not part of the Third Reich in the 1930s and 40s so they don't count an Nazis.
You can be moderates on racism if you want, but it doesn't change the fact that Rogan hosts white supremacists and Nazis, bangs the "actually reverse racism is the problem" drum, promotes conspiracy theories and says stuff like
Defining "defending" as anyone who disagrees with your interpretation and opinions on the topic isnpretty goosey, pants.
No, attempt to contradict or mitigate criticisms of a person is the definition of defending
The easy way to tell Im defending Joe Rogan is because I call him a vapid starfucker who doesnt really care about the values expressed on his show as long as theyre entertaining. Its a classic rhetorical defense.
This was kind of the entire issue.
There is no excuse for having Spencer or Jones on your show if you are not going to confront them about their horrendous toxic bullshit. Having them on just for yucks, makes them seem less bad than they actually are. That'd be enough for me.
But the fact that he also went out of his way to "I'm not saying it's aliens, but it's aliens" regarding Hillary Clinton having people killed. Just no. No. That's not something you let slide. Especially if you are Bernie Sanders, who ran against Clinton in the Primary and then did tons of campaigning for her afterwords. You don't let that go.
Radicalization is a funnel. Is Joe Rogan’s show the narrow part of the funnel? No, it’s pretty wide. But it’s still part of the funnel, and the fewer people who get into the funnel to begin with, the better.
It’s one thing to dip into the funnel and try to convince people to exit out the wide end. But it sounds like Bernie wasn’t preaching anti-alt right, he was just preaching his standard stump message. You can think non-whites are subhuman and also be in favor of higher taxes on the rich. Bernie may very well get some Rogan fans to vote for him; but he may also be paying for that by dumping some Bernie fans into the funnel.
Radicalization isn't a funnel, it's a sieve. Hateful rhetoric will catch the attention of maladjusted losers with no purpose or direction in life and leave them in a position to stand out as monsters, but it won't turn decent people with meaningful social connections into weird outcasts.
Meaning, these guys aren’t just trolls in basements—they’re people you probably know. Beirich calls them “millennial misogynists.” K says many are college-educated and articulate. They have day jobs and Tinder accounts. In the fall of 2017, white supremacist propaganda on college campuses more than tripled from the previous year, according to ADL data. No wonder, per the FBI, that hate crimes rose about 17 percent too. (This number is probably even a vast undercount, since hate crimes are notoriously underreported.)
Modern “male supremacy,” as the experts now call it, actually dates back to the 1970s, when men’s rights activists came about as a reaction to women’s liberation, explains Jessica Reaves, editorial director for the ADL’s Center on Extremism. This time, it’s not just feminism to blame—it’s Donald Trump. I didn’t say it. Nearly every expert I talked to did. “The 2016 campaign energized misogynistic groups,” says Reaves. “They heard very powerful men talking about women in a way we had never seen before in public.”
Many of today’s extremists hide their radical views under the guise of boy-next-door preppy looks and organize activities, like all-male hikes, to appear mainstream. “They have a product they want to sell and that product is hate,” says K. “When you see a bunch of normal-looking guys, you think, How bad could it be? But violent men don’t have to look any different from kind men.” Some of the ones K tracks post pictures with their kids and pets amid their calls for mass violence.
Is this the part that's supposed to refute what I wrote: "K says many are college-educated and articulate. They have day jobs and Tinder accounts." ?
No, it's this part:
Many of today’s extremists hide their radical views under the guise of boy-next-door preppy looks and organize activities, like all-male hikes, to appear mainstream. “They have a product they want to sell and that product is hate,” says K. “When you see a bunch of normal-looking guys, you think, How bad could it be? But violent men don’t have to look any different from kind men.” Some of the ones K tracks post pictures with their kids and pets amid their calls for mass violence.
"Maladjusted losers", as you put it, by definition do not have the tools to fit into society. And it turns out that just having "meaningful social connections" doesn't stop someone from being a monster.
Thanks for clarifying. I disagree with your contention that maladjusted losers do not have the tools to fit into society. Plenty of maladjusted people can "fit in" some or most of the time (in no small part because other people will adjust themselves in an attempt to get things to fit--I'm sure you're familiar with the "missing stair" analogy for social dynamics that develop around toxic people). I also disagree that the social connections these people have are meaningful, because to read about them these groups tend to be plagued by petty personality conflicts, backstabbing, delusions of grandeur, etc.
"Missing stairs" tend to be less about people who "can't" fit in and more about people who "won't" fit in, in large part because they have social standing that allows them to force the group to conform to them. These sorts routinely are socially adroit as well - they know who they can and cannot abuse, which helps them hide their abuses.
Right, because by "maladjusted losers" I didn't mean "people who can't fit in". That was your understanding, but it was a misunderstanding, and if you want to address my point with a better understanding of what I meant, you're welcome to do so.
This thread: "Guys no one is defending Joe Rogan" followed by pages on pages of defending Joe Rogan by saying his guests were not part of the Third Reich in the 1930s and 40s so they don't count an Nazis.
You can be moderates on racism if you want, but it doesn't change the fact that Rogan hosts white supremacists and Nazis, bangs the "actually reverse racism is the problem" drum, promotes conspiracy theories and says stuff like
Defining "defending" as anyone who disagrees with your interpretation and opinions on the topic isnpretty goosey, pants.
No, attempt to contradict or mitigate criticisms of a person is the definition of defending
The easy way to tell Im defending Joe Rogan is because I call him a vapid starfucker who doesnt really care about the values expressed on his show as long as theyre entertaining. Its a classic rhetorical defense.
It is, actually - lawyers refer to it as "putting the turd on the mantle". The idea is that you know you have a problematic issue you can't get around, so you play offense with it, putting it up yourself - and thus getting the ability to define how it's defined. You're calling Rogan a "vapid starfucker" to preclude the argument that he's not just picking his guests out of a sense of celebrity, but because he actually does agree with them.
Hey thanks for saying Im acting in bad faith Hedgie.
You don't go on his show to just sway him. The man has six million subs. How many of those don't vote or vote based on entirely incorrect assumptions? If Sanders can get 1% of them voting for him instead of otherwise that's 60,000 votes, that's not insubstantial. And Sanders is good at that, he sounds reasonable, he was engaging.
I'm not interested in defending Rogan. I'm interested in persuading people to hold more progressive views, and this is a way to do that. Would I say "don't go on Fox!" yes absolutely, for different reasons. But you have to go to people. You knock on doors in areas where people vote regressively and persuade them otherwise. You connect to people and their needs. I remember reading in the Aus thread here someone, @Crimson King maybe? Saying give him fifteen minutes with the woman in a youtube video voting regressively and he'd have her voting green because she doesn't have strongly held idealogical reasons for her vote but is anti-establishment and frustrated with politics.
This is the same thing. Young guys without political motivation or interest are ripe for it, and if Sanders doesn't then Steve Bannon types will!
absolutely this
the biggest thing i learnt from doorknocking is that people's opinions are way more malleable than i realised. for every rusted-on nazi incel there's ten guys who just kind of like listening to ideas. maybe they vaguely think aliens are real and hillary killed seth rich, but they also want a job and think health care should be better. and they can be swayed in whatever direction because they don't really take any of it that seriously
expecting the average voter to be instinctively scandalised by conspiracy theories is a non-starter. most people have a vague sense that something spooky is going on, which of course there is, and they don't see any pressing reason it shouldn't be a bunch of clinton cult murders. the actual world is crazy and hostile enough that it seems as plausible as anything else. but the kind of abstract economic paranoia that people tend to buy into does not have to automatically translate into voting republican - given the right kind of campaign, you can pretty easily redirect that energy towards the left
in that regard, going on joe rogan seems like one of the best possible things bernie could have done
The Liberal faction is in no danger of losing its numbers, they have news networks like MSNBC to replenish the ranks they don't need Rogan's help.
Sanders and most of his supporters do not occupy the same political space you or MSNBC do. There seems to be a significant misunderstanding of the politics of people to the left of you going on.
At this point you can’t say that Joe isn’t an anti-intellectual if he still believes that the moon landing is a hoax. He’s had it explained to him on numerous occasions by professionals and if he still maintains that it’s all fake he’s as dumb and ignorant as people say he is.
The Liberal faction is in no danger of losing its numbers, they have news networks like MSNBC to replenish the ranks they don't need Rogan's help.
Sanders and most of his supporters do not occupy the same political space you or MSNBC do. There seems to be a significant misunderstanding of the politics of people to the left of you going on.
We're in agreement, the Far left occupy Rogan's space liberals don't.
0
Options
MonwynApathy's a tragedy, and boredom is a crime.A little bit of everything, all of the time.Registered Userregular
Honestly a lot of this sounds like it comes from a place of insecurity like even just hearing the occasional Shapiro interview between MMA and MDT anecdotes is a poison not to be bourn.
Add to that the weirdness of thinking youre somehow fighting it by refusing to even talk in the same spaces.
So tell me - how much bigotry are we supposed to tolerate in the name of reaching out? How much racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, etc. are we supposed to just let slide as part of our efforts to bring people into the fold?
Hedgie I went to college with someone who was a gigantic racist teetering on the edge of white nationalism. Huge confederate flag tacked up on one wall of his living room. His father once lectured me on the dangers of miscegenation. We clear about the type of person we're talking about? Cool.
We marched next to each other in band, there really wasn't any way to get away from him. Through many, many conversations as well as being exposed to other people and discovering that they were not in fact illiterate subhumans who would steal anything you set down he came out the other side. His most recent post on Facebook was a genuine offer of help to anyone who was impacted by the recent ICE raids in Mississippi (he grew up not far from where they took place; a mutual friend of ours may have actually worked at the same chicken processing plant for a few summers.) I posted when Warren was hosting her town hall in Jackson a couple months ago and he blew my damn phone up trying to figure out how to get in. He is decidedly one of us.
I would submit that if your tolerance for these people is literal zero, you will never actually convert any of them, and they will raise their children to believe the same shit. You don't actually stop racism by shoving it down the memory hole. You deal with it by dealing with it. And some of that requires being willing to engage with bad people (or go into bad spaces) to actually have those conversations.
If we believe liberal ideals are better we should be willing to go into the ugly spaces and proselytize and trust that these ideals will win people over. If we don't then we should just get it over with and balkanize.
+12
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
This thread: "Guys no one is defending Joe Rogan" followed by pages on pages of defending Joe Rogan by saying his guests were not part of the Third Reich in the 1930s and 40s so they don't count an Nazis.
You can be moderates on racism if you want, but it doesn't change the fact that Rogan hosts white supremacists and Nazis, bangs the "actually reverse racism is the problem" drum, promotes conspiracy theories and says stuff like
Defining "defending" as anyone who disagrees with your interpretation and opinions on the topic isnpretty goosey, pants.
No, attempt to contradict or mitigate criticisms of a person is the definition of defending
The easy way to tell Im defending Joe Rogan is because I call him a vapid starfucker who doesnt really care about the values expressed on his show as long as theyre entertaining. Its a classic rhetorical defense.
It is, actually - lawyers refer to it as "putting the turd on the mantle". The idea is that you know you have a problematic issue you can't get around, so you play offense with it, putting it up yourself - and thus getting the ability to define how it's defined. You're calling Rogan a "vapid starfucker" to preclude the argument that he's not just picking his guests out of a sense of celebrity, but because he actually does agree with them.
Wait are you saying Rogan picked Cornel West and Bernie Sanders and Kimberlé Crenshaw as guest because he agrees with them?
Posts
I just listened to that and saw nothing in there about Gavin McInness making jokes and not being sincere. What lines, specifically, are you referring to? The main part that stuck out to me was "[Gavin] fucked up when he started that group and he fucked up when he was calling for violence."
Is this the part that's supposed to refute what I wrote: "K says many are college-educated and articulate. They have day jobs and Tinder accounts." ?
No, it's this part:
"Maladjusted losers", as you put it, by definition do not have the tools to fit into society. And it turns out that just having "meaningful social connections" doesn't stop someone from being a monster.
Add to that the weirdness of thinking youre somehow fighting it by refusing to even talk in the same spaces.
Well, considering that this is a silly exaggeration as well as an argument that nobody is actually making I would agree it’s not coming from a place of rational thought.
It's like going to a well you know is dry and casting a bucket down anyway.
So tell me - how much bigotry are we supposed to tolerate in the name of reaching out? How much racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, etc. are we supposed to just let slide as part of our efforts to bring people into the fold?
Also, what sort of message does it send to the people targeted by these bigoted beliefs when we turn a blind eye to it? Especially considering that the left has its own issues with things like misogyny.
I agree that saying they would all end up as Nazis is an exaggeration. But I couldn't take another round of tut Turing from AH for not calling them bad enough names.
But as for the rest of it. I can point you to specific examples of posters claiming Bernie won't change the mind of a single Rogan listener but how Rogan will for Bernie supporters. So it's not actually an exaggeration at all.
Go to your local Democratic district meeting and get back to me about how much bigotry we have to tolerate. Going to mine was eye opening.
I don't know if talking to pedophiles is the best use of time.
I dont think it would be a very productive use of his time, but I dont think equating the Joe Rogan Experience to a child pornography outlet is very helpful to the discussion either.
Primarily: You don't want to give a viewer boost to really horrible platforms; you end up trading making your case for exposing the odious shit to a lot more people. It's arguable whether Rogan counts enough on either end but that's the idea.
You can be moderates on racism if you want, but it doesn't change the fact that Rogan hosts white supremacists and Nazis, bangs the "actually reverse racism is the problem" drum, promotes conspiracy theories and says stuff like
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
To not give traffic and/or attention to questionable outlets, especially when there are numerous other outlets that reach a similar audience and don’t have the same baggage.
Defining "defending" as anyone who disagrees with your interpretation and opinions on the topic isnpretty goosey, pants.
I mean sure if this was the White Power Hour (136 subscribers) thatd be one thing but this has a significantly larger audience than Pod save America
Hence the bolded, yes.
Thanks for clarifying. I disagree with your contention that maladjusted losers do not have the tools to fit into society. Plenty of maladjusted people can "fit in" some or most of the time (in no small part because other people will adjust themselves in an attempt to get things to fit--I'm sure you're familiar with the "missing stair" analogy for social dynamics that develop around toxic people). I also disagree that the social connections these people have are meaningful, because to read about them these groups tend to be plagued by petty personality conflicts, backstabbing, delusions of grandeur, etc.
back to brazil, boys
we'll try another clone
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
As best I can tell Rogan has had McInnes on his show exactly twice, once in 2015 - when, so far as I can tell, he was best known as "that dude what started Vice," - and once in early 2017, before anyone who was not deep in Left and/or Fascist Twitter knew who the fuck the Proud Boys were.
I haven't watched either of these episodes (I think I've seen about forty-five minutes of the JRE, total, over half of which was him talking about how he spent a fortune to get an ISDN line installed in 1995 so he could be a LPB in Quake and the remainder of which was him talking about how Trump was an idiot) so I can't comment on their content. But I pay pretty close attention to politics, and my general impression of McInnes around that point was that while he was a shithead, was not in the same league as Richard Spencer. If pressed I probably would have put him in the same bucket as O'Keefe: huge douchebag, but not a nazi.
The easy way to tell Im defending Joe Rogan is because I call him a vapid starfucker who doesnt really care about the values expressed on his show as long as theyre entertaining. Its a classic rhetorical defense.
"Missing stairs" tend to be less about people who "can't" fit in and more about people who "won't" fit in, in large part because they have social standing that allows them to force the group to conform to them. These sorts routinely are socially adroit as well - they know who they can and cannot abuse, which helps them hide their abuses.
It is, actually - lawyers refer to it as "putting the turd on the mantle". The idea is that you know you have a problematic issue you can't get around, so you play offense with it, putting it up yourself - and thus getting the ability to define how it's defined. You're calling Rogan a "vapid starfucker" to preclude the argument that he's not just picking his guests out of a sense of celebrity, but because he actually does agree with them.
Yes. It's like saying Trump isn't really a racist he just wants to rile up voters. When you offer a better alternative, especially one that serves your rhetorical purpose, its defending someone.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
This was kind of the entire issue.
There is no excuse for having Spencer or Jones on your show if you are not going to confront them about their horrendous toxic bullshit. Having them on just for yucks, makes them seem less bad than they actually are. That'd be enough for me.
But the fact that he also went out of his way to "I'm not saying it's aliens, but it's aliens" regarding Hillary Clinton having people killed. Just no. No. That's not something you let slide. Especially if you are Bernie Sanders, who ran against Clinton in the Primary and then did tons of campaigning for her afterwords. You don't let that go.
Right, because by "maladjusted losers" I didn't mean "people who can't fit in". That was your understanding, but it was a misunderstanding, and if you want to address my point with a better understanding of what I meant, you're welcome to do so.
Hey thanks for saying Im acting in bad faith Hedgie.
absolutely this
the biggest thing i learnt from doorknocking is that people's opinions are way more malleable than i realised. for every rusted-on nazi incel there's ten guys who just kind of like listening to ideas. maybe they vaguely think aliens are real and hillary killed seth rich, but they also want a job and think health care should be better. and they can be swayed in whatever direction because they don't really take any of it that seriously
expecting the average voter to be instinctively scandalised by conspiracy theories is a non-starter. most people have a vague sense that something spooky is going on, which of course there is, and they don't see any pressing reason it shouldn't be a bunch of clinton cult murders. the actual world is crazy and hostile enough that it seems as plausible as anything else. but the kind of abstract economic paranoia that people tend to buy into does not have to automatically translate into voting republican - given the right kind of campaign, you can pretty easily redirect that energy towards the left
in that regard, going on joe rogan seems like one of the best possible things bernie could have done
Sanders and most of his supporters do not occupy the same political space you or MSNBC do. There seems to be a significant misunderstanding of the politics of people to the left of you going on.
We're in agreement, the Far left occupy Rogan's space liberals don't.
Hedgie I went to college with someone who was a gigantic racist teetering on the edge of white nationalism. Huge confederate flag tacked up on one wall of his living room. His father once lectured me on the dangers of miscegenation. We clear about the type of person we're talking about? Cool.
We marched next to each other in band, there really wasn't any way to get away from him. Through many, many conversations as well as being exposed to other people and discovering that they were not in fact illiterate subhumans who would steal anything you set down he came out the other side. His most recent post on Facebook was a genuine offer of help to anyone who was impacted by the recent ICE raids in Mississippi (he grew up not far from where they took place; a mutual friend of ours may have actually worked at the same chicken processing plant for a few summers.) I posted when Warren was hosting her town hall in Jackson a couple months ago and he blew my damn phone up trying to figure out how to get in. He is decidedly one of us.
I would submit that if your tolerance for these people is literal zero, you will never actually convert any of them, and they will raise their children to believe the same shit. You don't actually stop racism by shoving it down the memory hole. You deal with it by dealing with it. And some of that requires being willing to engage with bad people (or go into bad spaces) to actually have those conversations.
If we believe liberal ideals are better we should be willing to go into the ugly spaces and proselytize and trust that these ideals will win people over. If we don't then we should just get it over with and balkanize.
Wait are you saying Rogan picked Cornel West and Bernie Sanders and Kimberlé Crenshaw as guest because he agrees with them?
worked on my dad