Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

A GST On The Ethics of Democrats Appearing on Alt Right Sympathetic Media

2456729

Posts

  • Stabbity StyleStabbity Style Warning: Mothership Reporting Richland, WARegistered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    Time and again, shows like Fox News air left wing candidates stating their actual views.

    The show then immediately lies about those views.

    Their viewership accepts these lies and derides those candidates. Nothing changes.

    I am indeed quite content with not lending these shows any more legitimacy than they already hold. That time is easily better spent on a photo op in a battleground state or fundraising or just about anything else, really.

    Joe Rogan doesn't really do that, though, as far as I'm aware.

    SijLqhH.png
    Steam: stabbitystyle | uPlay: stabbitystyle | b.net: Stabbity#1528 | XBL: Stabbity Style | PSN: Stabbity_Style | Twitch: stabbitystyle
    zepherinNSDFRandAbsoluteZeroJuliusDee KaeWhiteZinfandelMagell
  • NyysjanNyysjan FinlandRegistered User regular
    Joe Rogan is an idiot and his audience consists of idiots. I don't think anyone who already supported Bernie is going to become a Rogan convert to right wing conspiracies, I would be surprised if they even listened to his show again. But if Bernie injected some sanity into the lives of Rogan's regular audience, I think that's a net positive.
    People on our side could never fall astray, we are just too damn pure.
    I am unconvinced.

    zepherinTryCatcherNo-QuarterFANTOMAS
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    If you want to reach across, my advice would be to actually talk to those people in a forum where you can control your message without bullshit baggage. Go to those communities, and listen.

    Seriously. Don't go on Rogan. Go to a suffering community, listen to their problems, and offer solutions amenable to that community.

    FencingsaxMan in the MistsElldren
  • No-QuarterNo-Quarter Nothing To Fear But Fear ItselfRegistered User regular
    Elendil wrote: »
    the both-sides stoners who listen to joe rogan are the uncertain voters

    I agree, and a part of the reason for their ignorance is because Joe Rogan is an overly credulous goose that plays footsie with conspiracy theorists and the alt-right.

    No matter what other good stuff he does (and I DO think Rogan's Show has discussions and guests of value) can sidestep the damage he's also doing.

    A bottle of water that's 9 parts water to 1 part bleach is still poison if you drink it.

    QuidPreacherEddyshrykeMilldispatch.ojmcdonaldLord_AsmodeusMan in the MistsNobeardKristmas KthulhuDouglasDangerElldren
  • MarathonMarathon Registered User regular
    Elendil wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Elendil wrote: »
    the both-sides stoners who listen to joe rogan are the uncertain voters

    I strongly doubt that the conspiracy theory podcast stoners are an especially vital demographic.
    who do you think voted for jill stein

    People who believe the conspiracy that the primary was “rigged” against Bernie and who will still not vote for the Democratic candidate of Bernie loses

    QuidNo-QuarterAbsoluteZeroMilljmcdonaldMan in the MistsButtersKristmas KthulhuElldren
  • PhasenPhasen Let's Disrupt the 2020 ElectionRegistered User regular
    Marathon wrote: »
    Phasen wrote: »
    Marathon wrote: »
    Phasen wrote: »
    Marathon wrote: »
    Phasen wrote: »
    Marathon wrote: »
    Phasen wrote: »
    Should no candidates go on shock jock type radio shows? What kind of criteria are we talking here?

    Sure, I don’t think any candidate from the Democratic side should go on a show where they openly promote conspiracy theories (even if it wasn’t on the episode they appeared on), or a show that’s disgustingly misogynistic like how Stern’s was.

    I don’t think that sets the bar unacceptably high by any means. If anything it’s pretty low.

    I completely disagree. Was Harris wrong to appear on the Breakfast Club? Was Warren wrong to do so as well?

    If they frequently discuss how Hillary Clinton murdered Seth Rich or have women take their clothes off in the studio, then yes it would be wrong for them to appear on the show.

    And this is, of course, completely ignoring that the Breakfast Club has wide appeal in the African American community, you know, a community that actually supports Democrats.

    So as long as its for the team it's ok to truck with conspiracy theories?

    What conspiracy theories do they push in the Breakfast Club?

    Alternatively; is it somehow ok to push conspiracy theories that benefit Bernie?

    re alternatively: why would you think that when I have explicitly stated my stance multiple times?

    What conspiracy theories are promoted by the breakfast club?

    Not conspiracies but problematic elements.

    https://theoutline.com/post/2037/the-token-women-of-hip-hop-radio?zd=1&zi=cri6zxhx

    https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/05/elizabeth-warren-rachel-dolezal-charlamagne

    psn: PhasenWeeple
    Julius
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    Time and again, shows like Fox News air left wing candidates stating their actual views.

    The show then immediately lies about those views.

    Their viewership accepts these lies and derides those candidates. Nothing changes.

    I am indeed quite content with not lending these shows any more legitimacy than they already hold. That time is easily better spent on a photo op in a battleground state or fundraising or just about anything else, really.

    Joe Rogan doesn't really do that, though, as far as I'm aware.

    He instead promotes made up conspiracy theories against candidates he doesn't like.

    It's not really a meaningful difference for me.

    No-QuarterPreachershrykeButtersElldren
  • NinjeffNinjeff Registered User regular
    Show of hands, how many people actually listen to Rogans podcast?
    And, by listen, i dont mean go to youtube to find edited clips of ______ that support ______. I mean actually consistently listen to all or most of his podcasts weekly?
    Because i do, and i have to say, any accusations of him being "a shill for the right" is kind of funny.


    Granted, i wasnt thrilled he let Alex Jones run rampant for 4 hours (although it was 100% hilarious how off Jones is) but i truly got the impression Rogan knew he coudlnt do anything to point out the crazy better than Alex Jones was doing to himself.

    Still, i dont mind the right wing people on there, same as i dont mind the left. Most people usually have something interesting to say, and its up to my developed brain to decide if i want to agree. Rogan is the first one to say he isnt around to play "gotcha" with guests of any political stripe, but instead wants to just talk to people and see what comes up. I respect that, and frankly, think we could all do with a bit more of it. Sometimes i wish he'd call out points better than he does, but thats ok because i still get turned on to a lot of guests ideas or perspectives i wouldnt have in a different setting. Cornell West was a great example of framing things i wouldnt have thought of otherwise, and turned out to be a far more entertaining guest that i anticipated.

    MrMisterJRoseywanderingJuliusWhiteZinfandelFrankiedarlingSolventDamnItCohaagenjimb213
  • zepherinzepherin Registered User regular
    Elendil wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Elendil wrote: »
    the both-sides stoners who listen to joe rogan are the uncertain voters

    I strongly doubt that the conspiracy theory podcast stoners are an especially vital demographic.
    who do you think voted for jill stein
    People who didn't like Hilary and a surprising number of people who didn't like Trump, which is bonkers that to spite your party you are going to vote for the green party.

    Voters are often irrational.

    QuidAbsoluteZero
  • FoefallerFoefaller Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    Foefaller wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Phasen wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    YamiB. wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Pretty much every time a Dem goes on a right wing news source, unless they're tearing in to the hosts themselves, I can't help but feel they'd be much better served going just about anywhere else.

    Go shake hands in a battleground district or something.

    So which sources are acceptable to go on? Because pretty much all of the platforms we have going to a wide audience are right-wing and racist.

    There are plenty of options beyond Fox News and Rogan.

    I also didn't say it was unacceptable. Just a waste of time. The people consuming Fox News are the same ones outright denying reality when confronted with it. There's no appealing to them.

    This is almost as bad as accusing the North Korean people of being brain washed. There is always a way in. If you never try you wont find it though.

    The last decade has demonstrated otherwise.

    American conservatives are a group whose ideals repeatedly revolve around obtaining power at any cost for those with an R by their name and denying anything and everything that contradicts with what they claim to be true.

    The day they decide to grow up and approach society like adults is the day when trying to appeal to them is worthwhile.

    If you put the barrier of entry to the rest of society as renouncing all they once believed in you will never get anything other than a middle finger as a response.

    That's all they've given no matter the approach. Democrats have tried being conciliatory in good faith to the right for decades. The response, without fail, is the right promoting conspiracy theories and stonewalling at every opportunity.

    I can not fathom looking at the entirety of Obama's administration, the right wing response to it, and thinking that the problem was the lack of outreach to the right.

    And the GoP has had to rely more and more on voter suppression, Gerrymandering and agitating a shrinking base to stay competitive in the time since, haven't they?

    I'm not talking about giving shitheels with actual power in the system like McConnell a second chance, they've proven unequivocally where they stand and I hope the next Dem president runs right over them to do what needs to be done to fix the last 4 years. But the GoP isn't a monolithic Hive mind that cannot be reasoned with, there are everyday people you can reach out to who've been misled to believe things that are counterproductive not just for themselves but their friends and neighbors as well. You have to reach out and expose them to new ideas, and be willing to sit and explain further when they show interest without demanding they first prove they've given up all the other things you disagree with.

    And I'm not talking about tolerating those ideas either, just that you have to show as much patience as you can to have them come to the right decision before you beat them over the head about how wrong they are. And yeah, maybe we're at the point where we can't afford that much patience right now, but IMO that can't be the default stance for all time either.

    However, there is a limit to how deep into the filth you should go if you want to stay clean. From what it sounds like Sanders probably went too deep in this case, but at the same time I thought his appearance on Fox was pretty good, even though at lot here seem to think that's too far as well.

    steam_sig.png
  • PhasenPhasen Let's Disrupt the 2020 ElectionRegistered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Time and again, shows like Fox News air left wing candidates stating their actual views.

    The show then immediately lies about those views.

    Their viewership accepts these lies and derides those candidates. Nothing changes.

    I am indeed quite content with not lending these shows any more legitimacy than they already hold. That time is easily better spent on a photo op in a battleground state or fundraising or just about anything else, really.

    Joe Rogan doesn't really do that, though, as far as I'm aware.

    He instead promotes made up conspiracy theories against candidates he doesn't like.

    It's not really a meaningful difference for me.

    He's known for not believing we landed on the moon. I don't even think it has anything to do with politics. He just seems to like conspiracies.

    psn: PhasenWeeple
  • Albino BunnyAlbino Bunny Special Associate Model Registered User regular
    Foefaller wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Phasen wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    YamiB. wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Pretty much every time a Dem goes on a right wing news source, unless they're tearing in to the hosts themselves, I can't help but feel they'd be much better served going just about anywhere else.

    Go shake hands in a battleground district or something.

    So which sources are acceptable to go on? Because pretty much all of the platforms we have going to a wide audience are right-wing and racist.

    There are plenty of options beyond Fox News and Rogan.

    I also didn't say it was unacceptable. Just a waste of time. The people consuming Fox News are the same ones outright denying reality when confronted with it. There's no appealing to them.

    This is almost as bad as accusing the North Korean people of being brain washed. There is always a way in. If you never try you wont find it though.

    The last decade has demonstrated otherwise.

    American conservatives are a group whose ideals repeatedly revolve around obtaining power at any cost for those with an R by their name and denying anything and everything that contradicts with what they claim to be true.

    The day they decide to grow up and approach society like adults is the day when trying to appeal to them is worthwhile.

    If you put the barrier of entry to the rest of society as immediately and completely renouncing all they once believed in you will never get anything other than a middle finger as a response.

    There isn't a middle position on stuff like LGBT rights or 'racism is bad'.

    Also the right wing media is like, active fucking grifters whose entire entire paycheck is based on middle fingers and not changing their minds. It's stuff like PragerU presenting itself as a faux educational channel while peddling lies and being funded by billionaire frackers or Stephen Crowder insisting 'Socialism is for F*gs' actually is calling socialist Figs. So even for stuff where there is some theoretical magical middle ground of only killing X people due to medical poverty or whatever is still a joke because they're lying about where the middle is from their point of view.

    AngelHedgieQuidPreacherEddyFencingsaxMillLord_AsmodeusDarkPrimusMan in the MistsElldrenjimb213
  • MarathonMarathon Registered User regular
    Phasen wrote: »
    Marathon wrote: »
    Phasen wrote: »
    Marathon wrote: »
    Phasen wrote: »
    Marathon wrote: »
    Phasen wrote: »
    Marathon wrote: »
    Phasen wrote: »
    Should no candidates go on shock jock type radio shows? What kind of criteria are we talking here?

    Sure, I don’t think any candidate from the Democratic side should go on a show where they openly promote conspiracy theories (even if it wasn’t on the episode they appeared on), or a show that’s disgustingly misogynistic like how Stern’s was.

    I don’t think that sets the bar unacceptably high by any means. If anything it’s pretty low.

    I completely disagree. Was Harris wrong to appear on the Breakfast Club? Was Warren wrong to do so as well?

    If they frequently discuss how Hillary Clinton murdered Seth Rich or have women take their clothes off in the studio, then yes it would be wrong for them to appear on the show.

    And this is, of course, completely ignoring that the Breakfast Club has wide appeal in the African American community, you know, a community that actually supports Democrats.

    So as long as its for the team it's ok to truck with conspiracy theories?

    What conspiracy theories do they push in the Breakfast Club?

    Alternatively; is it somehow ok to push conspiracy theories that benefit Bernie?

    re alternatively: why would you think that when I have explicitly stated my stance multiple times?

    What conspiracy theories are promoted by the breakfast club?

    Not conspiracies but problematic elements.

    https://theoutline.com/post/2037/the-token-women-of-hip-hop-radio?zd=1&zi=cri6zxhx

    https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/05/elizabeth-warren-rachel-dolezal-charlamagne

    Oh, so we’re moving the goalposts already?

    I’ll also point out that you’re example featuring Warren was from her appearance in the show. So she did as able to respond in the moment.

    QuidNo-QuarterFencingsaxLoisLaneMan in the Mists
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    Phasen wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Time and again, shows like Fox News air left wing candidates stating their actual views.

    The show then immediately lies about those views.

    Their viewership accepts these lies and derides those candidates. Nothing changes.

    I am indeed quite content with not lending these shows any more legitimacy than they already hold. That time is easily better spent on a photo op in a battleground state or fundraising or just about anything else, really.

    Joe Rogan doesn't really do that, though, as far as I'm aware.

    He instead promotes made up conspiracy theories against candidates he doesn't like.

    It's not really a meaningful difference for me.

    He's known for not believing we landed on the moon. I don't even think it has anything to do with politics. He just seems to like conspiracies.

    This is not a statement that encourages any good will on my part for people appearing on his show.

    No-QuarterFencingsaxElldrenFANTOMAS
  • PhasenPhasen Let's Disrupt the 2020 ElectionRegistered User regular
    Marathon wrote: »
    Phasen wrote: »
    Marathon wrote: »
    Phasen wrote: »
    Marathon wrote: »
    Phasen wrote: »
    Marathon wrote: »
    Phasen wrote: »
    Marathon wrote: »
    Phasen wrote: »
    Should no candidates go on shock jock type radio shows? What kind of criteria are we talking here?

    Sure, I don’t think any candidate from the Democratic side should go on a show where they openly promote conspiracy theories (even if it wasn’t on the episode they appeared on), or a show that’s disgustingly misogynistic like how Stern’s was.

    I don’t think that sets the bar unacceptably high by any means. If anything it’s pretty low.

    I completely disagree. Was Harris wrong to appear on the Breakfast Club? Was Warren wrong to do so as well?

    If they frequently discuss how Hillary Clinton murdered Seth Rich or have women take their clothes off in the studio, then yes it would be wrong for them to appear on the show.

    And this is, of course, completely ignoring that the Breakfast Club has wide appeal in the African American community, you know, a community that actually supports Democrats.

    So as long as its for the team it's ok to truck with conspiracy theories?

    What conspiracy theories do they push in the Breakfast Club?

    Alternatively; is it somehow ok to push conspiracy theories that benefit Bernie?

    re alternatively: why would you think that when I have explicitly stated my stance multiple times?

    What conspiracy theories are promoted by the breakfast club?

    Not conspiracies but problematic elements.

    https://theoutline.com/post/2037/the-token-women-of-hip-hop-radio?zd=1&zi=cri6zxhx

    https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/05/elizabeth-warren-rachel-dolezal-charlamagne

    Oh, so we’re moving the goalposts already?

    I’ll also point out that you’re example featuring Warren was from her appearance in the show. So she did as able to respond in the moment.

    My argument was that you were ok with it if it was for the team. We can ignore people's problems if they are on our team.

    psn: PhasenWeeple
  • NinjeffNinjeff Registered User regular
    Phasen wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Time and again, shows like Fox News air left wing candidates stating their actual views.

    The show then immediately lies about those views.

    Their viewership accepts these lies and derides those candidates. Nothing changes.

    I am indeed quite content with not lending these shows any more legitimacy than they already hold. That time is easily better spent on a photo op in a battleground state or fundraising or just about anything else, really.

    Joe Rogan doesn't really do that, though, as far as I'm aware.

    He instead promotes made up conspiracy theories against candidates he doesn't like.

    It's not really a meaningful difference for me.

    He's known for not believing we landed on the moon. I don't even think it has anything to do with politics. He just seems to like conspiracies.

    woof i dont want to turn into the resident "defend rogan" guy, but he is quick to note he USED to believe that, and was educated away from that.

    But yes, he does love conspiracy theories.

    Siska
  • ElendilElendil Registered User regular
    it is extremely good tactics to immediately write off the people who dislike the unpopular candidate from the last election and focus on the field of people that really liked that candidate but didn't bother showing up to vote, which i can only assume is vast

    TryCatcherJulius
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    Phasen wrote: »
    Marathon wrote: »
    Phasen wrote: »
    Marathon wrote: »
    Phasen wrote: »
    Marathon wrote: »
    Phasen wrote: »
    Marathon wrote: »
    Phasen wrote: »
    Marathon wrote: »
    Phasen wrote: »
    Should no candidates go on shock jock type radio shows? What kind of criteria are we talking here?

    Sure, I don’t think any candidate from the Democratic side should go on a show where they openly promote conspiracy theories (even if it wasn’t on the episode they appeared on), or a show that’s disgustingly misogynistic like how Stern’s was.

    I don’t think that sets the bar unacceptably high by any means. If anything it’s pretty low.

    I completely disagree. Was Harris wrong to appear on the Breakfast Club? Was Warren wrong to do so as well?

    If they frequently discuss how Hillary Clinton murdered Seth Rich or have women take their clothes off in the studio, then yes it would be wrong for them to appear on the show.

    And this is, of course, completely ignoring that the Breakfast Club has wide appeal in the African American community, you know, a community that actually supports Democrats.

    So as long as its for the team it's ok to truck with conspiracy theories?

    What conspiracy theories do they push in the Breakfast Club?

    Alternatively; is it somehow ok to push conspiracy theories that benefit Bernie?

    re alternatively: why would you think that when I have explicitly stated my stance multiple times?

    What conspiracy theories are promoted by the breakfast club?

    Not conspiracies but problematic elements.

    https://theoutline.com/post/2037/the-token-women-of-hip-hop-radio?zd=1&zi=cri6zxhx

    https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/05/elizabeth-warren-rachel-dolezal-charlamagne

    Oh, so we’re moving the goalposts already?

    I’ll also point out that you’re example featuring Warren was from her appearance in the show. So she did as able to respond in the moment.

    My argument was that you were ok with it if it was for the team. We can ignore people's problems if they are on our team.

    There is a far, far cry in difference between someone's opinions on a show and literal lies.

    If any leftwing show starts peddling conspiracy and lies then yeah, I'd rather candidates avoided those as well.

    PreacherMarathonNo-QuarterFencingsaxjmcdonaldNobeardButtersMan in the MistsElldren
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Ninjeff wrote: »
    Phasen wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Time and again, shows like Fox News air left wing candidates stating their actual views.

    The show then immediately lies about those views.

    Their viewership accepts these lies and derides those candidates. Nothing changes.

    I am indeed quite content with not lending these shows any more legitimacy than they already hold. That time is easily better spent on a photo op in a battleground state or fundraising or just about anything else, really.

    Joe Rogan doesn't really do that, though, as far as I'm aware.

    He instead promotes made up conspiracy theories against candidates he doesn't like.

    It's not really a meaningful difference for me.

    He's known for not believing we landed on the moon. I don't even think it has anything to do with politics. He just seems to like conspiracies.

    woof i dont want to turn into the resident "defend rogan" guy, but he is quick to note he USED to believe that, and was educated away from that.

    But yes, he does love conspiracy theories.

    Which is part of the whole problem (as we've discussed in the conspiracy theory thread) - the alt-right uses that sort of thinking as a tool for indoctrination.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
    QuidNo-QuarterBandableMan in the MistsElldren
  • MonwynMonwyn Registered User regular
    Rogan has pretty consistently expressed that he thinks Trump is a disgusting idiot with no business being president as far back as 2015

    The notion that offhandedly mentioning a conspiracy theory for two sentences is considered "pushing" that theory is also a pretty dumb framing

    uH3IcEi.png
    HeartlashElendilAbsoluteZeroStyrofoam SammichFrankiedarling
  • MarathonMarathon Registered User regular
    Phasen wrote: »
    Marathon wrote: »
    Phasen wrote: »
    Marathon wrote: »
    Phasen wrote: »
    Marathon wrote: »
    Phasen wrote: »
    Marathon wrote: »
    Phasen wrote: »
    Marathon wrote: »
    Phasen wrote: »
    Should no candidates go on shock jock type radio shows? What kind of criteria are we talking here?

    Sure, I don’t think any candidate from the Democratic side should go on a show where they openly promote conspiracy theories (even if it wasn’t on the episode they appeared on), or a show that’s disgustingly misogynistic like how Stern’s was.

    I don’t think that sets the bar unacceptably high by any means. If anything it’s pretty low.

    I completely disagree. Was Harris wrong to appear on the Breakfast Club? Was Warren wrong to do so as well?

    If they frequently discuss how Hillary Clinton murdered Seth Rich or have women take their clothes off in the studio, then yes it would be wrong for them to appear on the show.

    And this is, of course, completely ignoring that the Breakfast Club has wide appeal in the African American community, you know, a community that actually supports Democrats.

    So as long as its for the team it's ok to truck with conspiracy theories?

    What conspiracy theories do they push in the Breakfast Club?

    Alternatively; is it somehow ok to push conspiracy theories that benefit Bernie?

    re alternatively: why would you think that when I have explicitly stated my stance multiple times?

    What conspiracy theories are promoted by the breakfast club?

    Not conspiracies but problematic elements.

    https://theoutline.com/post/2037/the-token-women-of-hip-hop-radio?zd=1&zi=cri6zxhx

    https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/05/elizabeth-warren-rachel-dolezal-charlamagne

    Oh, so we’re moving the goalposts already?

    I’ll also point out that you’re example featuring Warren was from her appearance in the show. So she did as able to respond in the moment.

    My argument was that you were ok with it if it was for the team. We can ignore people's problems if they are on our team.

    You specifically said it’s ok when it’s conspiracy theories for “the team”, and now it’s just “problems”.

    Also worth note, Bernie Sanders has also appeared on the Breakfast Club. Are you ok with that? Or is it now only a problem that Warren and Harris should contend with?

    QuidjmcdonaldMan in the MistsElldren
  • NinjeffNinjeff Registered User regular
    Ninjeff wrote: »
    Phasen wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Time and again, shows like Fox News air left wing candidates stating their actual views.

    The show then immediately lies about those views.

    Their viewership accepts these lies and derides those candidates. Nothing changes.

    I am indeed quite content with not lending these shows any more legitimacy than they already hold. That time is easily better spent on a photo op in a battleground state or fundraising or just about anything else, really.

    Joe Rogan doesn't really do that, though, as far as I'm aware.

    He instead promotes made up conspiracy theories against candidates he doesn't like.

    It's not really a meaningful difference for me.

    He's known for not believing we landed on the moon. I don't even think it has anything to do with politics. He just seems to like conspiracies.

    woof i dont want to turn into the resident "defend rogan" guy, but he is quick to note he USED to believe that, and was educated away from that.

    But yes, he does love conspiracy theories.

    Which is part of the whole problem (as we've discussed in the conspiracy theory thread) - the alt-right uses that sort of thinking as a tool for indoctrination.

    I'm of the opinion that most people can listen to opposing views on stuff without being "indocrinated" into anything.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited August 8
    Warren's answer to the question of appearing on Fox News or the like remains the correct one imo:




    Not for this specific case, but for the general idea. By appearing on a platform, you bring revenue to that platform which supports what they do. Appearing on a platform is donating them content to fund whatever it is they do and say.

    So any candidate should always be asking themselves what they are promoting by appearing on a platform. What content is that platform creating that you are now supporting. That is the core issue.

    shryke on
    PreacherQuidFencingsaxMillBandableNobeardButtersMan in the MistsDark Raven XrndmheroElldrenZilla360
  • PhasenPhasen Let's Disrupt the 2020 ElectionRegistered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    Phasen wrote: »
    Marathon wrote: »
    Phasen wrote: »
    Marathon wrote: »
    Phasen wrote: »
    Marathon wrote: »
    Phasen wrote: »
    Marathon wrote: »
    Phasen wrote: »
    Marathon wrote: »
    Phasen wrote: »
    Should no candidates go on shock jock type radio shows? What kind of criteria are we talking here?

    Sure, I don’t think any candidate from the Democratic side should go on a show where they openly promote conspiracy theories (even if it wasn’t on the episode they appeared on), or a show that’s disgustingly misogynistic like how Stern’s was.

    I don’t think that sets the bar unacceptably high by any means. If anything it’s pretty low.

    I completely disagree. Was Harris wrong to appear on the Breakfast Club? Was Warren wrong to do so as well?

    If they frequently discuss how Hillary Clinton murdered Seth Rich or have women take their clothes off in the studio, then yes it would be wrong for them to appear on the show.

    And this is, of course, completely ignoring that the Breakfast Club has wide appeal in the African American community, you know, a community that actually supports Democrats.

    So as long as its for the team it's ok to truck with conspiracy theories?

    What conspiracy theories do they push in the Breakfast Club?

    Alternatively; is it somehow ok to push conspiracy theories that benefit Bernie?

    re alternatively: why would you think that when I have explicitly stated my stance multiple times?

    What conspiracy theories are promoted by the breakfast club?

    Not conspiracies but problematic elements.

    https://theoutline.com/post/2037/the-token-women-of-hip-hop-radio?zd=1&zi=cri6zxhx

    https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/05/elizabeth-warren-rachel-dolezal-charlamagne

    Oh, so we’re moving the goalposts already?

    I’ll also point out that you’re example featuring Warren was from her appearance in the show. So she did as able to respond in the moment.

    My argument was that you were ok with it if it was for the team. We can ignore people's problems if they are on our team.

    There is a far, far cry in difference between someone's opinions on a show and literal lies.

    If any leftwing show starts peddling conspiracy and lies then yeah, I'd rather candidates avoided those as well.

    Uh locking Trans people up if they don't reveal they are trans before you have sex with them is one of the many opinions Charlemagne had about women. It isn't a slight difference in opinion.

    psn: PhasenWeeple
  • AridholAridhol Daddliest Catch Registered User regular
    I have hated Rogan since being forced to watch UFC at work for years but I'm generally ok with my candidates going on whatever platform as long as they can & do say what they want to say.
    I have watched a couple of his podcasts in years past (maybe 3-5 in total?) because of specific guests but I can't actually stand the guy personally so I'm not a regular.
    As far as I know I haven't been radicalized by the alt-right but who knows.

    PhasenTryCatcherAbsoluteZeroMrMisterKoopahTroopahwanderingJuliusDee Kae
  • PhasenPhasen Let's Disrupt the 2020 ElectionRegistered User regular
    edited August 8
    Marathon wrote: »
    Phasen wrote: »
    Marathon wrote: »
    Phasen wrote: »
    Marathon wrote: »
    Phasen wrote: »
    Marathon wrote: »
    Phasen wrote: »
    Marathon wrote: »
    Phasen wrote: »
    Marathon wrote: »
    Phasen wrote: »
    Should no candidates go on shock jock type radio shows? What kind of criteria are we talking here?

    Sure, I don’t think any candidate from the Democratic side should go on a show where they openly promote conspiracy theories (even if it wasn’t on the episode they appeared on), or a show that’s disgustingly misogynistic like how Stern’s was.

    I don’t think that sets the bar unacceptably high by any means. If anything it’s pretty low.

    I completely disagree. Was Harris wrong to appear on the Breakfast Club? Was Warren wrong to do so as well?

    If they frequently discuss how Hillary Clinton murdered Seth Rich or have women take their clothes off in the studio, then yes it would be wrong for them to appear on the show.

    And this is, of course, completely ignoring that the Breakfast Club has wide appeal in the African American community, you know, a community that actually supports Democrats.

    So as long as its for the team it's ok to truck with conspiracy theories?

    What conspiracy theories do they push in the Breakfast Club?

    Alternatively; is it somehow ok to push conspiracy theories that benefit Bernie?

    re alternatively: why would you think that when I have explicitly stated my stance multiple times?

    What conspiracy theories are promoted by the breakfast club?

    Not conspiracies but problematic elements.

    https://theoutline.com/post/2037/the-token-women-of-hip-hop-radio?zd=1&zi=cri6zxhx

    https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/05/elizabeth-warren-rachel-dolezal-charlamagne

    Oh, so we’re moving the goalposts already?

    I’ll also point out that you’re example featuring Warren was from her appearance in the show. So she did as able to respond in the moment.

    My argument was that you were ok with it if it was for the team. We can ignore people's problems if they are on our team.

    You specifically said it’s ok when it’s conspiracy theories for “the team”, and now it’s just “problems”.

    Also worth note, Bernie Sanders has also appeared on the Breakfast Club. Are you ok with that? Or is it now only a problem that Warren and Harris should contend with?

    I guess I can say again that your position is not my position. I dont have a problem with anyone appearing anywhere barring some explicit problems.

    This is the third time I have had to say my position which you seem to not be able to follow.

    Phasen on
    psn: PhasenWeeple
    AridholNSDFRand
  • ElendilElendil Registered User regular
    Marathon wrote: »
    Phasen wrote: »
    Marathon wrote: »
    Phasen wrote: »
    Marathon wrote: »
    Phasen wrote: »
    Marathon wrote: »
    Phasen wrote: »
    Marathon wrote: »
    Phasen wrote: »
    Marathon wrote: »
    Phasen wrote: »
    Should no candidates go on shock jock type radio shows? What kind of criteria are we talking here?

    Sure, I don’t think any candidate from the Democratic side should go on a show where they openly promote conspiracy theories (even if it wasn’t on the episode they appeared on), or a show that’s disgustingly misogynistic like how Stern’s was.

    I don’t think that sets the bar unacceptably high by any means. If anything it’s pretty low.

    I completely disagree. Was Harris wrong to appear on the Breakfast Club? Was Warren wrong to do so as well?

    If they frequently discuss how Hillary Clinton murdered Seth Rich or have women take their clothes off in the studio, then yes it would be wrong for them to appear on the show.

    And this is, of course, completely ignoring that the Breakfast Club has wide appeal in the African American community, you know, a community that actually supports Democrats.

    So as long as its for the team it's ok to truck with conspiracy theories?

    What conspiracy theories do they push in the Breakfast Club?

    Alternatively; is it somehow ok to push conspiracy theories that benefit Bernie?

    re alternatively: why would you think that when I have explicitly stated my stance multiple times?

    What conspiracy theories are promoted by the breakfast club?

    Not conspiracies but problematic elements.

    https://theoutline.com/post/2037/the-token-women-of-hip-hop-radio?zd=1&zi=cri6zxhx

    https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/05/elizabeth-warren-rachel-dolezal-charlamagne

    Oh, so we’re moving the goalposts already?

    I’ll also point out that you’re example featuring Warren was from her appearance in the show. So she did as able to respond in the moment.

    My argument was that you were ok with it if it was for the team. We can ignore people's problems if they are on our team.

    You specifically said it’s ok when it’s conspiracy theories for “the team”, and now it’s just “problems”.

    Also worth note, Bernie Sanders has also appeared on the Breakfast Club. Are you ok with that? Or is it now only a problem that Warren and Harris should contend with?
    this is missing the point profoundly

    no, it's fine that warren and harris went on it. it's fine that people still go on CNN. you go where the audience is. as long as you don't fuck it up by either adulterating the message or getting publicly owned, it's fine

    AridholStyrofoam SammichJulius
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Ninjeff wrote: »
    Ninjeff wrote: »
    Phasen wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Time and again, shows like Fox News air left wing candidates stating their actual views.

    The show then immediately lies about those views.

    Their viewership accepts these lies and derides those candidates. Nothing changes.

    I am indeed quite content with not lending these shows any more legitimacy than they already hold. That time is easily better spent on a photo op in a battleground state or fundraising or just about anything else, really.

    Joe Rogan doesn't really do that, though, as far as I'm aware.

    He instead promotes made up conspiracy theories against candidates he doesn't like.

    It's not really a meaningful difference for me.

    He's known for not believing we landed on the moon. I don't even think it has anything to do with politics. He just seems to like conspiracies.

    woof i dont want to turn into the resident "defend rogan" guy, but he is quick to note he USED to believe that, and was educated away from that.

    But yes, he does love conspiracy theories.

    Which is part of the whole problem (as we've discussed in the conspiracy theory thread) - the alt-right uses that sort of thinking as a tool for indoctrination.

    I'm of the opinion that most people can listen to opposing views on stuff without being "indocrinated" into anything.

    That would not be accurate. Repeated exposure to an idea makes it seem more accurate. Even if you initially knew it was false.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_truth_effect

    This is one of the ways that the internet serves as a gateway to extremism.

    QuidSleepFencingsaxNyysjanNobeardMan in the MistsElldrenDarkewolfeFANTOMAS
  • SummaryJudgmentSummaryJudgment Today we will paint a mountain that owes us nothing. Registered User regular
    I've listened to two Rogan episodes: Bernie and Killer Mike. I don't think either of them are promoting an alt-right agenda by going on.

    tERiPJd.jpg
    AbsoluteZeroJuliusDee Kae
  • FoefallerFoefaller Registered User regular
    edited August 8
    Foefaller wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Phasen wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    YamiB. wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Pretty much every time a Dem goes on a right wing news source, unless they're tearing in to the hosts themselves, I can't help but feel they'd be much better served going just about anywhere else.

    Go shake hands in a battleground district or something.

    So which sources are acceptable to go on? Because pretty much all of the platforms we have going to a wide audience are right-wing and racist.

    There are plenty of options beyond Fox News and Rogan.

    I also didn't say it was unacceptable. Just a waste of time. The people consuming Fox News are the same ones outright denying reality when confronted with it. There's no appealing to them.

    This is almost as bad as accusing the North Korean people of being brain washed. There is always a way in. If you never try you wont find it though.

    The last decade has demonstrated otherwise.

    American conservatives are a group whose ideals repeatedly revolve around obtaining power at any cost for those with an R by their name and denying anything and everything that contradicts with what they claim to be true.

    The day they decide to grow up and approach society like adults is the day when trying to appeal to them is worthwhile.

    If you put the barrier of entry to the rest of society as immediately and completely renouncing all they once believed in you will never get anything other than a middle finger as a response.

    There isn't a middle position on stuff like LGBT rights or 'racism is bad'.

    Also the right wing media is like, active fucking grifters whose entire entire paycheck is based on middle fingers and not changing their minds. It's stuff like PragerU presenting itself as a faux educational channel while peddling lies and being funded by billionaire frackers or Stephen Crowder insisting 'Socialism is for F*gs' actually is calling socialist Figs. So even for stuff where there is some theoretical magical middle ground of only killing X people due to medical poverty or whatever is still a joke because they're lying about where the middle is from their point of view.

    I'm not talking about agreeing to a middle ground on racism/sexism/etc. I agree there is none.

    I'm talking about maybe they've reached a breaking point and are sick and tired about gun violence and want something to be done about it, so you explain all the things that could be done and how pretty much everyone that shows any initative to do something about it are Democrats. Then you might talk about other things you're fairly sure they would agree on, like more affordable health care or fixing gerrymandering (both of which have popularity across the aile) It's once you get them thinking about (or more than thinking) about actually voting D, you can start (politely) calling out on the racism and sexism and all the other awful stuff.

    But you don't go "why do you care now? You're a racist hick that have no problems when a cop guns down an unarmed man as long as they're black or brown." Because as true as that might be, that gets you nowhere in convincing them of anything, much less that they should stop thinking like that.

    I remember former talk show jock Charlie Sykes saying that the best thing about getting fired for being an Anti-Trumper is that he now feels free to express an opinion that doesn't half to adhere to GoP dogma. You get them to stop thinking of themselves a "always Republican" you got at in that let's you tear down all the other awful ideas they've been fed until they've been made to believe them.

    Foefaller on
    steam_sig.png
  • HeartlashHeartlash Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Warren's answer to the question of appearing on Fox News or the like remains the correct one imo:




    Not for this specific case, but for the general idea. By appearing on a platform, you bring revenue to that platform which supports what they do. Appearing on a platform is donating them content to fund whatever it is they do and say.

    So any candidate should always be asking themselves what they are promoting by appearing on a platform. What content is that platform creating that you are now supporting. That is the core issue.

    I really hate to say this but do you think it's possible Warren is pandering based on, you know, currently competing in a Democratic primary?

    It will be interesting to see if this position suddenly changes if she becomes the nominee and Fox News wants to host a debate.

    My indie mobile gaming studio: Elder Aeons
    Our first game is now available for free on Google Play: Frontier: Isle of the Seven Gods
    NSDFRand
  • FoefallerFoefaller Registered User regular
    And as I said earlier, I understand there are things that are way too important to wait for current GoP voters to agree with before fixing, like racism and LGBQ rights. I'm mostly talking about the long game to get people out of that mindset and hopefully lead to the current GoP vanishing into the history books for something that isn't ok with separating kids from their parents or a president who promotes white supremacy.

    steam_sig.png
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Heartlash wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Warren's answer to the question of appearing on Fox News or the like remains the correct one imo:




    Not for this specific case, but for the general idea. By appearing on a platform, you bring revenue to that platform which supports what they do. Appearing on a platform is donating them content to fund whatever it is they do and say.

    So any candidate should always be asking themselves what they are promoting by appearing on a platform. What content is that platform creating that you are now supporting. That is the core issue.

    I really hate to say this but do you think it's possible Warren is pandering based on, you know, currently competing in a Democratic primary?

    It will be interesting to see if this position suddenly changes if she becomes the nominee and Fox News wants to host a debate.

    What makes you think this?

    Regardless though, that's not actually a rebuttal to the point she's making. By appearing on a platform, you are supporting that platform's revenue stream and funding all the things they do. That's one of if not the main consideration imo.

    PreacherNobeardButtersrndmheroElldren
  • ElendilElendil Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Warren's answer to the question of appearing on Fox News or the like remains the correct one imo:




    Not for this specific case, but for the general idea. By appearing on a platform, you bring revenue to that platform which supports what they do. Appearing on a platform is donating them content to fund whatever it is they do and say.

    So any candidate should always be asking themselves what they are promoting by appearing on a platform. What content is that platform creating that you are now supporting. That is the core issue.
    and, i personally, would argue that whatever little bit of revenue fox makes off it (and fox is going to be juuuuust fine, don't worry) is probably worth getting a platform to tell fox news viewers that fox news is full of shit and hopefully maybe peeling off a few voters

    that said, i think bernie is probably the only one who can pull it off since, as we know, he is Not a Democrat

    Julius
  • Albino BunnyAlbino Bunny Special Associate Model Registered User regular
    Foefaller wrote: »
    Foefaller wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Phasen wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    YamiB. wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Pretty much every time a Dem goes on a right wing news source, unless they're tearing in to the hosts themselves, I can't help but feel they'd be much better served going just about anywhere else.

    Go shake hands in a battleground district or something.

    So which sources are acceptable to go on? Because pretty much all of the platforms we have going to a wide audience are right-wing and racist.

    There are plenty of options beyond Fox News and Rogan.

    I also didn't say it was unacceptable. Just a waste of time. The people consuming Fox News are the same ones outright denying reality when confronted with it. There's no appealing to them.

    This is almost as bad as accusing the North Korean people of being brain washed. There is always a way in. If you never try you wont find it though.

    The last decade has demonstrated otherwise.

    American conservatives are a group whose ideals repeatedly revolve around obtaining power at any cost for those with an R by their name and denying anything and everything that contradicts with what they claim to be true.

    The day they decide to grow up and approach society like adults is the day when trying to appeal to them is worthwhile.

    If you put the barrier of entry to the rest of society as immediately and completely renouncing all they once believed in you will never get anything other than a middle finger as a response.

    There isn't a middle position on stuff like LGBT rights or 'racism is bad'.

    Also the right wing media is like, active fucking grifters whose entire entire paycheck is based on middle fingers and not changing their minds. It's stuff like PragerU presenting itself as a faux educational channel while peddling lies and being funded by billionaire frackers or Stephen Crowder insisting 'Socialism is for F*gs' actually is calling socialist Figs. So even for stuff where there is some theoretical magical middle ground of only killing X people due to medical poverty or whatever is still a joke because they're lying about where the middle is from their point of view.

    I'm not talking about agreeing to a middle ground on racism/sexism/etc. I agree there is none.

    I'm talking about maybe they've reached a breaking point and are sick and tired about gun violence and want something to be done about it, so you explain all the things that could be done and how pretty much everyone that shows any initative to do something about it are Democrats. Then you might talk about other things you're fairly sure they would agree on, like more affordable health care or fixing gerrymandering (both of which have popularity across the aile) It's once you get them thinking about (or more than thinking) about actually voting D, you can start (politely) calling out on the racism and sexism and all the other awful stuff.

    But you don't go "why do you care now? You're a racist hick that have no problems when a cop guns down an unarmed man as long as they're black or brown."

    I remember former talk show jock Charlie Sykes saying that the best thing about getting fired for being an Anti-Trumper is that he now feels free to express an opinion that doesn't half to adhere to GoP dogma. You get them to stop thinking of themselves a "always Republican" you got at in that let's you tear down all the other awful ideas they've been fed until they've been made to believe them.

    This would be a great point if the last decade had not being a slow slide right in many countries while weak ass liberal ‘we’re the middle between these assholes and good’ parties flounder.

    I have no desire to describe all right wing folks as some silly skin head stereotype. Im just exceptionally sure they aren’t going to be mollified by polite and meek debate. Hands reached across the aisle just yank to the right.

    Man in the Mists
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Heartlash wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Warren's answer to the question of appearing on Fox News or the like remains the correct one imo:




    Not for this specific case, but for the general idea. By appearing on a platform, you bring revenue to that platform which supports what they do. Appearing on a platform is donating them content to fund whatever it is they do and say.

    So any candidate should always be asking themselves what they are promoting by appearing on a platform. What content is that platform creating that you are now supporting. That is the core issue.

    I really hate to say this but do you think it's possible Warren is pandering based on, you know, currently competing in a Democratic primary?

    It will be interesting to see if this position suddenly changes if she becomes the nominee and Fox News wants to host a debate.

    What makes you think this?

    Regardless though, that's not actually a rebuttal to the point she's making. By appearing on a platform, you are supporting that platform's revenue stream and funding all the things they do. That's one of if not the main consideration imo.

    I really doubt Warren who has been routinely slandered on Fox news as Pocahontas is going to do any debate they are involved with.

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
  • MarathonMarathon Registered User regular
    I've listened to two Rogan episodes: Bernie and Killer Mike. I don't think either of them are promoting an alt-right agenda by going on.

    No one said they were, just that they are giving voice to a show that spends time promoting alt-right views when they aren’t there.

    QuidElldren
  • NebulousQNebulousQ Registered User regular
    edited August 8
    Ninjeff wrote: »
    Show of hands, how many people actually listen to Rogans podcast?
    And, by listen, i dont mean go to youtube to find edited clips of ______ that support ______. I mean actually consistently listen to all or most of his podcasts weekly?
    Because i do, and i have to say, any accusations of him being "a shill for the right" is kind of funny.


    Granted, i wasnt thrilled he let Alex Jones run rampant for 4 hours (although it was 100% hilarious how off Jones is) but i truly got the impression Rogan knew he coudlnt do anything to point out the crazy better than Alex Jones was doing to himself.

    Still, i dont mind the right wing people on there, same as i dont mind the left. Most people usually have something interesting to say, and its up to my developed brain to decide if i want to agree. Rogan is the first one to say he isnt around to play "gotcha" with guests of any political stripe, but instead wants to just talk to people and see what comes up. I respect that, and frankly, think we could all do with a bit more of it. Sometimes i wish he'd call out points better than he does, but thats ok because i still get turned on to a lot of guests ideas or perspectives i wouldnt have in a different setting. Cornell West was a great example of framing things i wouldnt have thought of otherwise, and turned out to be a far more entertaining guest that i anticipated.

    Thank you for providing your perspective!

    NebulousQ on
    MrMisterNobeard
  • PhasenPhasen Let's Disrupt the 2020 ElectionRegistered User regular
    Foefaller wrote: »
    Foefaller wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Phasen wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    YamiB. wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Pretty much every time a Dem goes on a right wing news source, unless they're tearing in to the hosts themselves, I can't help but feel they'd be much better served going just about anywhere else.

    Go shake hands in a battleground district or something.

    So which sources are acceptable to go on? Because pretty much all of the platforms we have going to a wide audience are right-wing and racist.

    There are plenty of options beyond Fox News and Rogan.

    I also didn't say it was unacceptable. Just a waste of time. The people consuming Fox News are the same ones outright denying reality when confronted with it. There's no appealing to them.

    This is almost as bad as accusing the North Korean people of being brain washed. There is always a way in. If you never try you wont find it though.

    The last decade has demonstrated otherwise.

    American conservatives are a group whose ideals repeatedly revolve around obtaining power at any cost for those with an R by their name and denying anything and everything that contradicts with what they claim to be true.

    The day they decide to grow up and approach society like adults is the day when trying to appeal to them is worthwhile.

    If you put the barrier of entry to the rest of society as immediately and completely renouncing all they once believed in you will never get anything other than a middle finger as a response.

    There isn't a middle position on stuff like LGBT rights or 'racism is bad'.

    Also the right wing media is like, active fucking grifters whose entire entire paycheck is based on middle fingers and not changing their minds. It's stuff like PragerU presenting itself as a faux educational channel while peddling lies and being funded by billionaire frackers or Stephen Crowder insisting 'Socialism is for F*gs' actually is calling socialist Figs. So even for stuff where there is some theoretical magical middle ground of only killing X people due to medical poverty or whatever is still a joke because they're lying about where the middle is from their point of view.

    I'm not talking about agreeing to a middle ground on racism/sexism/etc. I agree there is none.

    I'm talking about maybe they've reached a breaking point and are sick and tired about gun violence and want something to be done about it, so you explain all the things that could be done and how pretty much everyone that shows any initative to do something about it are Democrats. Then you might talk about other things you're fairly sure they would agree on, like more affordable health care or fixing gerrymandering (both of which have popularity across the aile) It's once you get them thinking about (or more than thinking) about actually voting D, you can start (politely) calling out on the racism and sexism and all the other awful stuff.

    But you don't go "why do you care now? You're a racist hick that have no problems when a cop guns down an unarmed man as long as they're black or brown."

    I remember former talk show jock Charlie Sykes saying that the best thing about getting fired for being an Anti-Trumper is that he now feels free to express an opinion that doesn't half to adhere to GoP dogma. You get them to stop thinking of themselves a "always Republican" you got at in that let's you tear down all the other awful ideas they've been fed until they've been made to believe them.

    This would be a great point if the last decade had not being a slow slide right in many countries while weak ass liberal ‘we’re the middle between these assholes and good’ parties flounder.

    I have no desire to describe all right wing folks as some silly skin head stereotype. Im just exceptionally sure they aren’t going to be mollified by polite and meek debate. Hands reached across the aisle just yank to the right.

    Do you think that is a valid fear in this instance?

    psn: PhasenWeeple
  • NinjeffNinjeff Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Ninjeff wrote: »
    Ninjeff wrote: »
    Phasen wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Time and again, shows like Fox News air left wing candidates stating their actual views.

    The show then immediately lies about those views.

    Their viewership accepts these lies and derides those candidates. Nothing changes.

    I am indeed quite content with not lending these shows any more legitimacy than they already hold. That time is easily better spent on a photo op in a battleground state or fundraising or just about anything else, really.

    Joe Rogan doesn't really do that, though, as far as I'm aware.

    He instead promotes made up conspiracy theories against candidates he doesn't like.

    It's not really a meaningful difference for me.

    He's known for not believing we landed on the moon. I don't even think it has anything to do with politics. He just seems to like conspiracies.

    woof i dont want to turn into the resident "defend rogan" guy, but he is quick to note he USED to believe that, and was educated away from that.

    But yes, he does love conspiracy theories.

    Which is part of the whole problem (as we've discussed in the conspiracy theory thread) - the alt-right uses that sort of thinking as a tool for indoctrination.

    I'm of the opinion that most people can listen to opposing views on stuff without being "indocrinated" into anything.

    That would not be accurate. Repeated exposure to an idea makes it seem more accurate. Even if you initially knew it was false.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_truth_effect

    This is one of the ways that the internet serves as a gateway to extremism.

    Rogan seems to have a wildly varying array of guests so, again, I'm not super worried about it.

    And, even if he is slightly to the right or left, or whatever, i dont find it difficult to be in the presence of people that i dont always agree with. And do so without changing my political underpinnings. Yet still be entertained by a good discussion.

    Like, is this where we are now? As a progressive party? That we cant even allow a left leaning politician to go on a slightly less left leaning podcast (one of the biggest podcasts in the country too) because the right has everyone so damn scared that we create our own boogie men where there isnt any?

    AridholTryCatcherNSDFRandMrMisterwanderingFrankiedarlingPennyUnwiseZilla360
Sign In or Register to comment.