Edit: what I meant by open platform wasn't that literally anyone could go on there, I meant that Rogan will more or less let his guests get their viewpoint out, at length, with as much detail as they'd like to - although it is a fallacy that he doesn't contest their viewpoints ... again from earlier I don't really watch his show anymore, but I do remember a Peterson interview where he more or less made Peterson look like a moron and got him to accidentally endorse authoritarian communism. That isn't being an apologist, he shouldn't platform some of these people AT ALL and I fundamentally disagree with Joe Rogan's views of the marketplace of ideas (to say nothing of how repugnant I find some of Rogan's personal beliefs), but it is important we not spread disinformation
I crafted a whopping mammoth of a post only a few pages ago demonstrating that this isn't true in any really sense.
I think you may have mentally added "on bad social justice subjects" here. Still not something I concede, but I haven't taken the time to hunt down counter examples.
We already covered a number of examples that fit within that broader parameter you and override used, though. Joe did push back on Eddie Bravo on flat earth stuff, he pushed back on Candace Owens on climate change and other things, and he pushed back on Adam Conover on both transgender issues and the idea that we should let go of our ideals of fairness in sports.
That's the best you've got?
Rogan parroted the narrative that Seth Rich was totes murdered by Clinton, bruh and spread the smear that Antifa are a bunch of thugs from Ngo, and yet for some reason the jury is still out for you about whether or not this guy is somehow a neutral arbiter, and not an alt-right friendly useful idiot.
Dude. Your claim was "Rogan doesn't contest his guests' viewpoints." We have repeatedly demonstrated that's false. Your response is goalpost-moving. Just admit you got sloppy and spoke too broadly. We can move on to the other stuff afterward.
P.S. That same night you made your lengthy post, Joe Rogan retweeted this thread about Andy Ngo. I'm sure that won't alter your opinion of the man at all, but I found it indicative that he's not secretly on Andy Ngo's side.
"Talking to undesirables makes you an undesirable" is a poisonous Fucking attitude.
CNN has higher standards of fighting back against terrible conservatives like Shapiro then Joe Rogan. Rogan's not "talking" to them, he's normalising them.
ROFL, I'm tired of posting that CNN had Richard Spencer up a month ago. I said before that it was a bullshit double standard and I stand for it. I get that you people hate alternative media because "if the NYT and Co. were the sole arbiters of truth then Trump wouldn't have been elected", but the MSM are no longer the ony game in town. Get over it.
I'm tired of posting that having him on for 10 minutes to provide "a different perspective," is, while bad and should be criticised, is also quite different than giving him four hours unchallenged, which is what Rogan does.
Rogan has never had Richard Spencer, an actual proud white supremacist, on his show.
Think it false equivalence or whatever all you want, but I'd like to point out that one of the primary arguments in this thread is the Rogan-as-gateway theory. Where listeners follow the guests to other guests to end up deep in the alt-right ecosystem. e.g. Rogan to Rubin to Tim Pool to Andy Warski to Spencer. Not Rogan to Spencer.
I do agree the two are quite different though. I think letting Richard "Open White Supremacist" Spencer provide "a different perspective"(!) for 10 minutes is much worse. He is a literal Nazi, not just some regular bigoted dumbass like Shapiro or Peterson, who are just regular conservatives that understand the internet and new media.
"Just some regular bigoted dumbass like Shapiro or Peterson, who are just regular conservatives"
That they've managed to shift the Overton window enough to now be considered "regular conservatives" is what I'm concerned about, and providing them with an uncritical platform is how they've accomplished that shift!
They have absolutely not shifted the window. Their ideas have always been part of regular conservative beliefs. They're just basic bigots.
Richard Spencer is a piece of shit and shouldn't be seen in daylight. I don't think giving him any air time is good, but holy hell if he appears on CNN at least there's going to be someone who disagrees with him as well and/or a newsperson who will call him on a bald-faced lie. And they clearly have him on as the counter to whatever reasonable points are being made by the not-racist Nazi.
They absolutely did no such thing. They did with the literal literal Nazi, but Spencer just got to explain how Trump was losing the real white supremacist vote like he is some honest constituency.
But ultimately, they have him on because they are laboring under a misguided delusion that all mass-media outlets are suffering from, that both sides to every issue must have valid points to make. And why is it this delusion persists? Because folks like Shapiro or Peterson, et al., who present ideas very similar to Richard Spencer's ideas - ideological wolves dressed in euphemistic wool!
Joe Rogan is this all the problems of CNN, etc., turned up to 11. He has somebody on for hours and hours and there isn't anyone to counter them. Nah, just hanging out and shooting the shit with 'em!
Ok but he still didn't just let a nazi talk. Shapiro may be a wolf in sheep's clothing, but he's not a wolf in just regular wolf clothes. Also, Rogan guests usually have talked for hours and hours in loads of other legitimate places. My dad didn't start talking to me about JB Peterson because he heard him on an episode of Rogan! Mass-media outlets don't suffer the delusion that these guys are legitimate because they appear on Rogan.
That clip fascinates me so I found the whole segment on CNN's website.
Paladin on
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Dude. Your claim was "Rogan doesn't contest his guests' viewpoints." We have repeatedly demonstrated that's false. Your response is goalpost-moving. Just admit you got sloppy and spoke too broadly. We can move on to the other stuff afterward.
With very flimsy evidence. Rogan's "contesting" Owens over climate change was intellectually lazy, he was in over his head debating her, despite being right for once. Nor did he acknowledge when she used "Globalists," that being wrong didn't register with him. Rogan makes Jake Tapper look like Walter Cronkite. People don't watch Rogan for him to argue with his guests, that's how he disarms guests and why they go on since he won't get into arguments with them. He thinks he's just a guy who's talking with some friends on a podcast, it's defined his podcast's brand.
P.S. That same night you made your lengthy post, Joe Rogan retweeted this thread about Andy Ngo. I'm sure that won't alter your opinion of the man at all, but I found it indicative that he's not secretly on Andy Ngo's side.
Rogan tweets lots of things, he blames the left/politicla correctness for Trump winning the election.
Dude. Your claim was "Rogan doesn't contest his guests' viewpoints." We have repeatedly demonstrated that's false. Your response is goalpost-moving. Just admit you got sloppy and spoke too broadly. We can move on to the other stuff afterward.
With very flimsy evidence. Rogan's "contesting" Owens over climate change was intellectually lazy, he was in over his head debating her, despite being right for once. Nor did he acknowledge when she used "Globalists," that being wrong didn't register with him. Rogan makes Jake Tapper look like Walter Cronkite. People don't watch Rogan for him to argue with his guests, that's how he disarms guests and why they go on since he won't get into arguments with them. He thinks he's just a guy who's talking with some friends on a podcast, it's defined his podcast's brand.
You know what? I got thrown by No-Quarter's bad writing. When No-Quarter wrote
I crafted a whopping mammoth of a post only a few pages ago demonstrating that this isn't true in any really sense.
I read that as an absolute statement since the "really" was an obvious error. If we change that to "real" then I would still disagree (obviously nobody would be upset about the Conover interview if Joe hadn't contested what he said in a real sense), but, that being more of a quantitative statement rather than a qualitative one (from what I can discern anyway) and therefore far more subjective, I wouldn't have bothered arguing it.
Are you sure about that? He does tweet all sorts of things, but one thing he mentions in the podcast periodically is that he posts articles and retweets things at times because he thinks they're interesting or funny, not necessarily because he endorses them or thinks they're true. And if he did, so what? What's that got to do with me thinking he isn't secretly on Andy Ngo's side?
Are you sure about that? He does tweet all sorts of things, but one thing he mentions in the podcast periodically is that he posts articles and retweets things at times because he thinks they're interesting or funny, not necessarily because he endorses them or thinks they're true. And if he did, so what? What's that got to do with me thinking he isn't secretly on Andy Ngo's side?
Rogan's less likely to take the Alt-Right or conservatives as a threat to society then we are. He is friends with and has a bad history of scolding the Andy Ngo's of the world, or those who send their audience into Ngo's circle since he views right wing propaganda as a valid opinion, which has he has low priority in combating on his show. He wants to be their friends, not get into disagreements with them. Of course he's either so high or ignorant that when he does so, like with Owens, he gets schooled because his research is lacking in how to break their argument down.
This reflects on why the far left appearing on his show won't help get him on their side, as the left has had plenty of opportunities to do that and he continues to default back to right wing thought when they leave his studio.
How many of his staff are on the Far Left, anyone know? I don't think Eddie Bravo's Far Left, he appears conservative to me. Who's there to reinforce the left wing message when he's not interviewing left wing guests?
+1
Options
knitdanIn ur baseKillin ur guysRegistered Userregular
It’s not exactly a secret. He’s openly on Ngo’s side.
“I was quick when I came in here, I’m twice as quick now”
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
The main problem I see with his detractors in this thread is that Rogan isn't as liberal as people think he ought to be. Which for a ~50 year old dude is pretty much a lost cause. He is never going to be liberal enough for a 20 year old. Hell, I'm probably not liberal enough for some of the people here.
Sure, if you ignore all that has been said in the thread before this page, you could get that idea, that Rogan is just "not 100% liberal" and the rest of us ski-mask wearing lefties are purity testing him into oblivion.
Or if you read the thread you could see that Rogan is simpathetic to the alt-right plight, not just regular conservative (if such thing still exists), but plataforming his personal friends from the alt-right. Just because Rogan likes to do drugs, doesnt make him a liberal, a lot of conservatives do drugs too.
Yes, with a quick verbal "boom." You take a man's peko, you deny him his dab, all that is left is to rise up and tear down the walls of Jericho with a ".....not!" -TexiKen
Trump in specific and the resurangce of the right around the world is indeed thought to be a backlash to marginalized groups like LGBT getting more rights and better treatment. This includes it no longer being socially acceptable to be casually homophobic.
This is a pretty wide spread theory that many political scientists hold.
BSoB on
+1
Options
No-QuarterNothing To FearBut Fear ItselfRegistered Userregular
Edit: what I meant by open platform wasn't that literally anyone could go on there, I meant that Rogan will more or less let his guests get their viewpoint out, at length, with as much detail as they'd like to - although it is a fallacy that he doesn't contest their viewpoints ... again from earlier I don't really watch his show anymore, but I do remember a Peterson interview where he more or less made Peterson look like a moron and got him to accidentally endorse authoritarian communism. That isn't being an apologist, he shouldn't platform some of these people AT ALL and I fundamentally disagree with Joe Rogan's views of the marketplace of ideas (to say nothing of how repugnant I find some of Rogan's personal beliefs), but it is important we not spread disinformation
I crafted a whopping mammoth of a post only a few pages ago demonstrating that this isn't true in any really sense.
I think you may have mentally added "on bad social justice subjects" here. Still not something I concede, but I haven't taken the time to hunt down counter examples.
We already covered a number of examples that fit within that broader parameter you and override used, though. Joe did push back on Eddie Bravo on flat earth stuff, he pushed back on Candace Owens on climate change and other things, and he pushed back on Adam Conover on both transgender issues and the idea that we should let go of our ideals of fairness in sports.
That's the best you've got?
Rogan parroted the narrative that Seth Rich was totes murdered by Clinton, bruh and spread the smear that Antifa are a bunch of thugs from Ngo, and yet for some reason the jury is still out for you about whether or not this guy is somehow a neutral arbiter, and not an alt-right friendly useful idiot.
Dude. Your claim was "Rogan doesn't contest his guests' viewpoints." We have repeatedly demonstrated that's false. Your response is goalpost-moving. Just admit you got sloppy and spoke too broadly. We can move on to the other stuff afterward.
P.S. That same night you made your lengthy post, Joe Rogan retweeted this thread about Andy Ngo. I'm sure that won't alter your opinion of the man at all, but I found it indicative that he's not secretly on Andy Ngo's side.
Oh man, he retweeted something! A real profile in courage!
Was his tweet about Ngo followed by a mea culpa about all the smears Rogan levied at Antifa and the left that he picked up from Ngo?
Has Rogan ever brought up how he was hideously wrong about Clinton and Seth Rich? Because the clip of him making those assertions and demanding an investigation are still up there on Youtube.
Has he ever said ANYTHING to Jones about his smearing the parents of slaughtered children, or brought up how those lies fostered death threats and forced those parents out of their homes?
No? Then move along, please. If the best you've got is "well, this one time he told an MMA guy that bruh, maybe the earth isn't flat", then I think we're done here.
I mean, I COULD go through that Candace Owen's interview where he "pushes back" on her about climate change, and document all the hideous shit she does get to spew with impunity, but I'd be wasting my time just like I did with my Ngo post.
e- I'll take my "bad writing" over your weak-tea rebuttals any day of the week.
Trump in specific and the resurangce of the right around the world is indeed thought to be a backlash to marginalized groups like LGBT getting more rights and better treatment. This includes it no longer being socially acceptable to be casually homophobic.
This is a pretty wide spread theory that many political scientists hold.
Sure and that makes sense if youre an academic studying these things
But that backlash has to be caused by underlying beliefs and prejudice. It doesnt just manifest out of nowhere. So when someone who isnt an academic cites that idea to a group of people who also arent academics theyre either saying “these beliefs are right” or “these beliefs are wrong”. They are taking a stand on the underlying cause.
When people are taking stands on the underlying cause only one side tends to talk about it in an obfuscating manner.
Am i to believe that Rogan, who regularly has alt-right people on his show is just really surprised by this study which explains the views of his guests? Or am i to believe that Rogan is normalizing the backlash as an OK thing?
Cause it sure as f reads as the latter
0
Options
MonwynApathy's a tragedy, and boredom is a crime.A little bit of everything, all of the time.Registered Userregular
Trump in specific and the resurangce of the right around the world is indeed thought to be a backlash to marginalized groups like LGBT getting more rights and better treatment. This includes it no longer being socially acceptable to be casually homophobic.
This is a pretty wide spread theory that many political scientists hold.
Sure and that makes sense if youre an academic studying these things
But that backlash has to be caused by underlying beliefs and prejudice. It doesnt just manifest out of nowhere. So when someone who isnt an academic cites that idea to a group of people who also arent academics theyre either saying “these beliefs are right” or “these beliefs are wrong”. They are taking a stand on the underlying cause.
Or they're literally repeating the general academic consensus using less formal language
Like holy shit dude I get that yall want to paint Rogan as a vicious committed bigot so that you can side-eye Sanders and be openly dismissive of his supporters as guilty of 'ism (again) but this is laughable
Let's back up here. Does anyone here believe Sanders' supporters are a problem more than any other group? Please don't answer if you don't personally believe that, and don't quote people's previous posts to accuse someone of believing that; let them speak for themselves, point blank, here and now.
If you do, no need to get into why or if you are correct or not in this particular thread, I just want to stop with the insinuations. If nobody speaks up, then Sanders' supporters are pretty similar to other Democrats and we shouldn't accuse people in this very thread of this prejudice.
Paladin on
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I think, being white male, Sanders will naturally draw a portion of the left wing voters who are absolutely against a woman or a person of color as a president.
I have no reason to believe they are statistically significant sample at the moment, especially in a field as large as democrats have at the moment.
As the field narrows, the amount of these people will increase, but not necessarily in relation to overall support Sanders will gain.
This is not a mark against Sanders, just an outcome of gender and racial attitudes that exist in society, and any white male candidate will attract these people in a race where there are women candidates running.
I don't think this is particularily important though, because going to Rogans podcast being bad is not out of Sanders supporters being especially vulnerable group (every group large enough will have people vulnerable).
I think, being white male, Sanders will naturally draw a portion of the left wing voters who are absolutely against a woman or a person of color as a president.
I have no reason to believe they are statistically significant sample at the moment, especially in a field as large as democrats have at the moment.
As the field narrows, the amount of these people will increase, but not necessarily in relation to overall support Sanders will gain.
This is not a mark against Sanders, just an outcome of gender and racial attitudes that exist in society, and any white male candidate will attract these people in a race where there are women candidates running.
I don't think this is particularily important though, because going to Rogans podcast being bad is not out of Sanders supporters being especially vulnerable group (every group large enough will have people vulnerable).
Thank you for your statement and for agreeing to respond to this unconventional request so quickly. I believe this shows good faith, though I do not intend to imply the lack of it in people who need more time or are otherwise unavailable.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Trump in specific and the resurangce of the right around the world is indeed thought to be a backlash to marginalized groups like LGBT getting more rights and better treatment. This includes it no longer being socially acceptable to be casually homophobic.
This is a pretty wide spread theory that many political scientists hold.
Sure and that makes sense if youre an academic studying these things
But that backlash has to be caused by underlying beliefs and prejudice. It doesnt just manifest out of nowhere. So when someone who isnt an academic cites that idea to a group of people who also arent academics theyre either saying “these beliefs are right” or “these beliefs are wrong”. They are taking a stand on the underlying cause.
Or they're literally repeating the general academic consensus using less formal language
Like holy shit dude I get that yall want to paint Rogan as a vicious committed bigot so that you can side-eye Sanders and be openly dismissive of his supporters as guilty of 'ism (again) but this is laughable
Yea i just randomly explain the scientific consensus with no purpose all the time in public conversation without acknowledging what that consensus means.
Doesnt everyone?
No. No they dont.
And in fact Joe Rogan doesnt either. But he does specifically exclaim that the left is unbearable. So i am apt to not care about claims he doesnt have those views. If he doesnt its not like i can tell the difference between him and someone who does
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
Trump in specific and the resurangce of the right around the world is indeed thought to be a backlash to marginalized groups like LGBT getting more rights and better treatment. This includes it no longer being socially acceptable to be casually homophobic.
This is a pretty wide spread theory that many political scientists hold.
Sure and that makes sense if youre an academic studying these things
But that backlash has to be caused by underlying beliefs and prejudice. It doesnt just manifest out of nowhere. So when someone who isnt an academic cites that idea to a group of people who also arent academics theyre either saying “these beliefs are right” or “these beliefs are wrong”. They are taking a stand on the underlying cause.
When people are taking stands on the underlying cause only one side tends to talk about it in an obfuscating manner.
Am i to believe that Rogan, who regularly has alt-right people on his show is just really surprised by this study which explains the views of his guests? Or am i to believe that Rogan is normalizing the backlash as an OK thing?
Cause it sure as f reads as the latter
Rogan isn't citing an academic source, he's citing Reason. And the random libertarian writing the article does in fact directly say the backlash is wrong, and even says he has no problem with gender neutral pronouns.
Which is of course not unexpected. I'm utterly mystified by how people in this thread are trying to pin outright homophobia on a libertarian. He has publicly supported gay rights, women's rights and expressed various other libertarian views. He endorsed Gary Johnson in 2016. If he was 20 years younger he'd be citing a South Park episode every show.
Just to check if were on the same page: you do understand that libertarianism was created so as to provide justification in preventing the federal government from enforcing anti-racism policy in the South correct?
Edit: the article says none of the things you claim it says. It in fact says that the backlash against progressive ideals is not a result of regressive ideals but rather a result of the abstract idea of political correctness pushing people who dont hold views contrary to what is politically correct. Edit: in that it ingores the fact that, if political correctness were an issue it requires that people hold regressive beliefs in such high regard that they would not be willing to shed them in the face of minor social pressure. If someone tells my video games are sexist* i have roughly three responses. I can either agree, not care or claim identity by the game. The article seems to imply that the last response isnt a result of deeply held beliefs or identification but rather a result of the act of pointing them out. Which is not how things work.
*and its telling that the author uses this example. You may also note that i left out “disagree” and this is because the act of “disagreeing” and the act of “claiming identity” are more or less impossible to distinguish. And because if you disagree but dont care you can still be in the “not care” position. Which would be either to personally or publicly shed the position.
Goumindong on
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
Am i to believe that Rogan, who regularly has alt-right people on his show is just really surprised by this study which explains the views of his guests?
like, taking Gavin McInnes, Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson as reference. Out of over 1300 episodes, he has had McInnes and Shapiro both on twice. Peterson is a more regular guest, though still in a mere fraction, but that's mainly because he talks about the kind of bullshit conspiracy theories and pseudoscience that appeals to someone like Rogan.
The vast majority of his guests are comedians and MMA folk and such. This article probably fits for a lot of them, in that they think the problem with "liberals" is not that they are wrong but that they are too zealous. Which may be a dumb opinion but is a widely shared one, importantly also among the kind of centre-right/"left"-blue-dog-democrats dickwads that form the main part of the media establishment. That Reason piece could also easily have appeared in the New York Times, for example.
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
Can we take a step back for a moment. I want to get something clarified.
Is the issue that you think that Rogan isn't a problem? Or just that he isn't as big of a problem as what's occurring in larger MSM outlets?
Mostly the latter. The former really just in the sense that if Rogan is a problem, that problem is not that he lets people like Spencer spout their hateful and vile bullshit unchecked, because he simply doesn't. The whole idea here was that he lets the more acceptable people speak their more innocuous and mainstream sounding bullshit, and listeners would be tricked into exploring the spaces where the real shit is spoken.
Rogan is not going to nod along to Spencer advocating the formation of a white-only state. He is going to nod along to Shapiro claiming the American/European culture is superior because of enlightenment or whatever.
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
Just to check if were on the same page: you do understand that libertarianism was created so as to provide justification in preventing the federal government from enforcing anti-racism policy in the South correct?
The fuck? Not everything is about the US and the very specific form of libertarianism you are talking about. Also why does that matter?
Edit: the article says none of the things you claim it says. It in fact says that the backlash against progressive ideals is not a result of regressive ideals but rather a result of the abstract idea of political correctness pushing people who dont hold views contrary to what is politically correct.
I never said this. Edit: in that it ingores the fact that, if political correctness were an issue it requires that people hold regressive beliefs in such high regard that they would not be willing to shed them in the face of minor social pressure. If someone tells my video games are sexist* i have roughly three responses. I can either agree, not care or claim identity by the game. The article seems to imply that the last response isnt a result of deeply held beliefs or identification but rather a result of the act of pointing them out. Which is not how things work.
I never said it didn't claim the bolded. Nor did I say the theory wasn't both wrong and stupid. My point:
The leftist drive to enforce a progressive social vision was relentless, and it happened too fast. I don't say this because I'm opposed to that vision—like most members of the under-30 crowd, I have no problem with gender neutral pronouns—I say this because it inspired a backlash that gave us Trump.
Guy doesn't think backlash ok.
It is literally the most obvious libertarian article you could expect. I could have written it.
The fuck? Not everything is about the US and the very specific form of libertarianism you are talking about. Also why does that matter?
But this is. Soave is from Misses even!
Edit: like... alll of this is. Its about American Alt rights on an American radio show and its effects on American elections. Where we are referencing an article written by an American libertarian from the most american school of libertarian thought discussing the effect of american society in american universities on american politics. It could almost not be more uniquely tied into the history of america
Edit: lol, forgot that this was originally about an american politician going on that show in the first place... its so about the US i literally forgot how much about the US it was
Guy doesn't think backlash ok.
That is not what that says. He thinks that liberals are “denying people their freedoms in a legal and social sense” and that theyre rightly paying for it
Just to check if were on the same page: you do understand that libertarianism was created so as to provide justification in preventing the federal government from enforcing anti-racism policy in the South correct?
The fuck? Not everything is about the US and the very specific form of libertarianism you are talking about. Also why does that matter?
Edit: the article says none of the things you claim it says. It in fact says that the backlash against progressive ideals is not a result of regressive ideals but rather a result of the abstract idea of political correctness pushing people who dont hold views contrary to what is politically correct.
I never said this. Edit: in that it ingores the fact that, if political correctness were an issue it requires that people hold regressive beliefs in such high regard that they would not be willing to shed them in the face of minor social pressure. If someone tells my video games are sexist* i have roughly three responses. I can either agree, not care or claim identity by the game. The article seems to imply that the last response isnt a result of deeply held beliefs or identification but rather a result of the act of pointing them out. Which is not how things work.
I never said it didn't claim the bolded. Nor did I say the theory wasn't both wrong and stupid. My point:
The leftist drive to enforce a progressive social vision was relentless, and it happened too fast. I don't say this because I'm opposed to that vision—like most members of the under-30 crowd, I have no problem with gender neutral pronouns—I say this because it inspired a backlash that gave us Trump.
Guy doesn't think backlash ok.
It is literally the most obvious libertarian article you could expect. I could have written it.
That last sentence is something I've heard almost word for word from alt right folks. It's not really the defense you want it to be.
(and before anyone goes "but everyone is alt right now~"- this was someone cheering on the Unite the Right rally and making excuses for the murder of Heather Hayer, among other odious examples)
+1
Options
MonwynApathy's a tragedy, and boredom is a crime.A little bit of everything, all of the time.Registered Userregular
Trump in specific and the resurangce of the right around the world is indeed thought to be a backlash to marginalized groups like LGBT getting more rights and better treatment. This includes it no longer being socially acceptable to be casually homophobic.
This is a pretty wide spread theory that many political scientists hold.
Sure and that makes sense if youre an academic studying these things
But that backlash has to be caused by underlying beliefs and prejudice. It doesnt just manifest out of nowhere. So when someone who isnt an academic cites that idea to a group of people who also arent academics theyre either saying “these beliefs are right” or “these beliefs are wrong”. They are taking a stand on the underlying cause.
Or they're literally repeating the general academic consensus using less formal language
Like holy shit dude I get that yall want to paint Rogan as a vicious committed bigot so that you can side-eye Sanders and be openly dismissive of his supporters as guilty of 'ism (again) but this is laughable
Yea i just randomly explain the scientific consensus with no purpose all the time in public conversation without acknowledging what that consensus means.
Doesnt everyone?
No. No they dont.
And in fact Joe Rogan doesnt either. But he does specifically exclaim that the left is unbearable. So i am apt to not care about claims he doesnt have those views. If he doesnt its not like i can tell the difference between him and someone who does
Just to check if were on the same page: you do understand that libertarianism was created so as to provide justification in preventing the federal government from enforcing anti-racism policy in the South correct?
The fuck? Not everything is about the US and the very specific form of libertarianism you are talking about. Also why does that matter?
Edit: the article says none of the things you claim it says. It in fact says that the backlash against progressive ideals is not a result of regressive ideals but rather a result of the abstract idea of political correctness pushing people who dont hold views contrary to what is politically correct.
I never said this. Edit: in that it ingores the fact that, if political correctness were an issue it requires that people hold regressive beliefs in such high regard that they would not be willing to shed them in the face of minor social pressure. If someone tells my video games are sexist* i have roughly three responses. I can either agree, not care or claim identity by the game. The article seems to imply that the last response isnt a result of deeply held beliefs or identification but rather a result of the act of pointing them out. Which is not how things work.
I never said it didn't claim the bolded. Nor did I say the theory wasn't both wrong and stupid. My point:
The leftist drive to enforce a progressive social vision was relentless, and it happened too fast. I don't say this because I'm opposed to that vision—like most members of the under-30 crowd, I have no problem with gender neutral pronouns—I say this because it inspired a backlash that gave us Trump.
Guy doesn't think backlash ok.
It is literally the most obvious libertarian article you could expect. I could have written it.
That last sentence is something I've heard almost word for word from alt right folks. It's not really the defense you want it to be.
One might hear "The Black Death killed 200 million people." followed by a Yay:D or a Nay:( and nobody would object that there were two different claims about the rightness of it.
That is, if " theyre either saying “these beliefs are right” or “these beliefs are wrong” " is true it can't also be true that they're also always saying these beliefs are right. Asserting a fact of cause and effect does not overrule that thing Hume said 300 years ago. Saying something happened is not the same as saying that the thing that happened was good.
0
Options
MonwynApathy's a tragedy, and boredom is a crime.A little bit of everything, all of the time.Registered Userregular
Yeah how fuckin' unbearable it is to demand people be treated with respect and be given the same basic fucking rights as everyone else.
Perhaps the left should learn not to treat anyone who disagrees with them, however mildly, as either a sub-literate imbecile or a complete moral abomination.
+5
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
The fuck? Not everything is about the US and the very specific form of libertarianism you are talking about. Also why does that matter?
But this is. Soave is from Misses even!
Edit: like... alll of this is. Its about American Alt rights on an American radio show and its effects on American elections. Where we are referencing an article written by an American libertarian from the most american school of libertarian thought discussing the effect of american society in american universities on american politics. It could almost not be more uniquely tied into the history of america
My point is that American history is not some sort of authority over whichever American claims to be a libertarian. "Libertarianism was about preventing the federal government from enforcing anti-racism policy in the South" is not some sort of cancel spell for libertarianism. It's not even relevant to the topic of gay rights! It's just making it look bad.
Guy doesn't think backlash ok.
That is not what that says. He thinks that liberals are “denying people their freedoms in a legal and social sense” and that theyre rightly paying for it
English is not my first language, but I'm pretty sure that "i'm not opposed to this vision, I agree with it" is not a condemnation of that vision. I think it is very uncharitable to interpret the entire statement/article as saying it is right that the backlash happened. The consequences of doing the wrong thing aren't always a positive.
Yeah how fuckin' unbearable it is to demand people be treated with respect and be given the same basic fucking rights as everyone else.
Perhaps the left should learn not to treat anyone who disagrees with them, however mildly, as either a sub-literate imbecile or a complete moral abomination.
Yes, because that's definitely an issue that only the left has on the Internet.
Holy hell, treating people you don't like as "a complete moral abomination" is basically the playbook of the GOP!
Yeah how fuckin' unbearable it is to demand people be treated with respect and be given the same basic fucking rights as everyone else.
Perhaps the left should learn not to treat anyone who disagrees with them, however mildly, as either a sub-literate imbecile or a complete moral abomination.
Yes, because that's definitely an issue that only the left has on the Internet.
Holy hell, treating people you don't like as "a complete moral abomination" is basically the playbook of the GOP!
It would also be nice if the left learned that everyone who pointed out their failings was not axiomatically doing so out of support for their ideological opponents.
Yeah how fuckin' unbearable it is to demand people be treated with respect and be given the same basic fucking rights as everyone else.
Perhaps the left should learn not to treat anyone who disagrees with them, however mildly, as either a sub-literate imbecile or a complete moral abomination.
Yes, because that's definitely an issue that only the left has on the Internet.
Holy hell, treating people you don't like as "a complete moral abomination" is basically the playbook of the GOP!
It would also be nice if the left learned that everyone who pointed out their failings was not axiomatically doing so out of support for their ideological opponents.
I'll again ask you to present me with a criticism that cannot be applied in equal (if not greater) measure to the right.
The fuck? Not everything is about the US and the very specific form of libertarianism you are talking about. Also why does that matter?
But this is. Soave is from Misses even!
Edit: like... alll of this is. Its about American Alt rights on an American radio show and its effects on American elections. Where we are referencing an article written by an American libertarian from the most american school of libertarian thought discussing the effect of american society in american universities on american politics. It could almost not be more uniquely tied into the history of america
My point is that American history is not some sort of authority over whichever American claims to be a libertarian. "Libertarianism was about preventing the federal government from enforcing anti-racism policy in the South" is not some sort of cancel spell for libertarianism. It's not even relevant to the topic of gay rights! It's just making it look bad.
Guy doesn't think backlash ok.
That is not what that says. He thinks that liberals are “denying people their freedoms in a legal and social sense” and that theyre rightly paying for it
English is not my first language, but I'm pretty sure that "i'm not opposed to this vision, I agree with it" is not a condemnation of that vision. I think it is very uncharitable to interpret the entire statement/article as saying it is right that the backlash happened. The consequences of doing the wrong thing aren't always a positive.
My point is that that there being other libertarians has nothing to with anything in this thread but American libertarianism and understanding it is fundamental to be able to undertand the context of what is being said. Everything in this thread is relevant to the american experience and history and its form of libertarians.
Re: “i am not opposed to this vision”. What youre missing here is the context. Its the “i have a black friend” or “i am just asking questions” defense. There is a reason that conservative libertarians come to the defense of white nationalists when they “have their free speech rights violated” but they dont come to the defense of liberals or left wing radicals when the same happens. He says that he supports it but he does not argue in favor of it. He argues against it. He argues for letting people against it speak and against letting people who are for it argue against them.
Why is he not arguing for the free speech rights of people who dont want to associate with milo and pressure the universities they attend to not host that speech on their behalf? Why doesnt he argue for the free speech rights of Lena Dunham? Rather than complain that “liberals sent her after conservatives”(like what?).
Well because he doesnt want to argue for those positions. He is the classic example of a concern troll.
Edit: my favorite political saying is GWBs version of “fool me once”. Its absolutely just perfect. It sounds folksy and keeps the spirit of the saying without actually saying “shame on me” so as to give every political opponent a handy clip to run in every campaign ad until the end of time.
This is, however, where are are at. The “cant be fooled again” stage. Weve had lucy pull that football out one too many times.
Goumindong on
+5
Options
MonwynApathy's a tragedy, and boredom is a crime.A little bit of everything, all of the time.Registered Userregular
Yeah how fuckin' unbearable it is to demand people be treated with respect and be given the same basic fucking rights as everyone else.
Perhaps the left should learn not to treat anyone who disagrees with them, however mildly, as either a sub-literate imbecile or a complete moral abomination.
Yes, because that's definitely an issue that only the left has on the Internet.
Holy hell, treating people you don't like as "a complete moral abomination" is basically the playbook of the GOP!
It would also be nice if the left learned that everyone who pointed out their failings was not axiomatically doing so out of support for their ideological opponents.
I'll again ask you to present me with a criticism that cannot be applied in equal (if not greater) measure to the right.
I understand that this confuses you but it's entirely possible for one to find the GOP repugnant and utterly devoid of merit and still believe that the outright glee with which the left castigates anyone who fails their purity tests to be A Problem.
See also: this conversation, where you're trying to paint me as a crypto-fascist based on [checks notes] a frustrated one-line joke. Also, this conversation rather proves the point of that joke, so, you know, thanks!
Yeah how fuckin' unbearable it is to demand people be treated with respect and be given the same basic fucking rights as everyone else.
Perhaps the left should learn not to treat anyone who disagrees with them, however mildly, as either a sub-literate imbecile or a complete moral abomination.
Yes, because that's definitely an issue that only the left has on the Internet.
Holy hell, treating people you don't like as "a complete moral abomination" is basically the playbook of the GOP!
It would also be nice if the left learned that everyone who pointed out their failings was not axiomatically doing so out of support for their ideological opponents.
I'll again ask you to present me with a criticism that cannot be applied in equal (if not greater) measure to the right.
I understand that this confuses you but it's entirely possible for one to find the GOP repugnant and utterly devoid of merit and still believe that the outright glee with which the left castigates anyone who fails their purity tests to be A Problem.
See also: this conversation, where you're trying to paint me as a crypto-fascist based on [checks notes] a frustrated one-line joke. Also, this conversation rather proves the point of that joke, so, you know, thanks!
Would love for you to show me where I painted you as a crypto-fascist.
The fuck? Not everything is about the US and the very specific form of libertarianism you are talking about. Also why does that matter?
But this is. Soave is from Misses even!
Edit: like... alll of this is. Its about American Alt rights on an American radio show and its effects on American elections. Where we are referencing an article written by an American libertarian from the most american school of libertarian thought discussing the effect of american society in american universities on american politics. It could almost not be more uniquely tied into the history of america
My point is that American history is not some sort of authority over whichever American claims to be a libertarian. "Libertarianism was about preventing the federal government from enforcing anti-racism policy in the South" is not some sort of cancel spell for libertarianism. It's not even relevant to the topic of gay rights! It's just making it look bad.
Guy doesn't think backlash ok.
That is not what that says. He thinks that liberals are “denying people their freedoms in a legal and social sense” and that theyre rightly paying for it
English is not my first language, but I'm pretty sure that "i'm not opposed to this vision, I agree with it" is not a condemnation of that vision. I think it is very uncharitable to interpret the entire statement/article as saying it is right that the backlash happened. The consequences of doing the wrong thing aren't always a positive.
My point is that that there being other libertarians has nothing to with anything in this thread but American libertarianism and understanding it is fundamental to be able to undertand the context of what is being said. Everything in this thread is relevant to the american experience and history and its form of libertarians.
Re: “i am not opposed to this vision”. What youre missing here is the context. Its the “i have a black friend” or “i am just asking questions” defense. There is a reason that conservative libertarians come to the defense of white nationalists when they “have their free speech rights violated” but they dont come to the defense of liberals or left wing radicals when the same happens. He says that he supports it but he does not argue in favor of it. He argues against it. He argues for letting people against it speak and against letting people who are for it argue against them.
This is an extremely weird argument in the context of the libertarian under discussion letting the left wing radicals give their whole thing on his show. Your argument here seems to be that in context these guys are just cynically using libertarian ideas to promote the conservative agenda. Which may be true for Soave i guess, but doesn't work for Rogan. These guys don't come to the defense of left wing radicals except for letting them do exactly what the other side does on his show?
I don’t understand what youre trying to say here. Are you disagreeing about the content that Rogan produces? Are you suggesting that he presents more time for left wingers than right wingers*? That he doesnt credulously promote right wingers?
Cause i could have sworn we had already cleared up those misconceptions
*refering to peoples whose job is politics: this just to preempt the “oh he totally talked to this person and theyre liberal” and ignoring that they may be liberal as a fact and not in a way that matters
0
Options
MonwynApathy's a tragedy, and boredom is a crime.A little bit of everything, all of the time.Registered Userregular
Yeah how fuckin' unbearable it is to demand people be treated with respect and be given the same basic fucking rights as everyone else.
Perhaps the left should learn not to treat anyone who disagrees with them, however mildly, as either a sub-literate imbecile or a complete moral abomination.
Yes, because that's definitely an issue that only the left has on the Internet.
Holy hell, treating people you don't like as "a complete moral abomination" is basically the playbook of the GOP!
It would also be nice if the left learned that everyone who pointed out their failings was not axiomatically doing so out of support for their ideological opponents.
I'll again ask you to present me with a criticism that cannot be applied in equal (if not greater) measure to the right.
I understand that this confuses you but it's entirely possible for one to find the GOP repugnant and utterly devoid of merit and still believe that the outright glee with which the left castigates anyone who fails their purity tests to be A Problem.
See also: this conversation, where you're trying to paint me as a crypto-fascist based on [checks notes] a frustrated one-line joke. Also, this conversation rather proves the point of that joke, so, you know, thanks!
Would love for you to show me where I painted you as a crypto-fascist.
Please explain the point of questioning why I'm not calling out the GOP (twice) if not to attempt to imply (twice) that I have no problem with the GOP's shitty behavior.
Like, I'm not stupid, dude, I know what you're doing, and so does everyone else.
Posts
Dude. Your claim was "Rogan doesn't contest his guests' viewpoints." We have repeatedly demonstrated that's false. Your response is goalpost-moving. Just admit you got sloppy and spoke too broadly. We can move on to the other stuff afterward.
P.S. That same night you made your lengthy post, Joe Rogan retweeted this thread about Andy Ngo. I'm sure that won't alter your opinion of the man at all, but I found it indicative that he's not secretly on Andy Ngo's side.
Is the issue that you think that Rogan isn't a problem? Or just that he isn't as big of a problem as what's occurring in larger MSM outlets?
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
That clip fascinates me so I found the whole segment on CNN's website.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
With very flimsy evidence. Rogan's "contesting" Owens over climate change was intellectually lazy, he was in over his head debating her, despite being right for once. Nor did he acknowledge when she used "Globalists," that being wrong didn't register with him. Rogan makes Jake Tapper look like Walter Cronkite. People don't watch Rogan for him to argue with his guests, that's how he disarms guests and why they go on since he won't get into arguments with them. He thinks he's just a guy who's talking with some friends on a podcast, it's defined his podcast's brand.
Rogan tweets lots of things, he blames the left/politicla correctness for Trump winning the election.
Joe Rogan is a podcaster
You know what? I got thrown by No-Quarter's bad writing. When No-Quarter wrote
I read that as an absolute statement since the "really" was an obvious error. If we change that to "real" then I would still disagree (obviously nobody would be upset about the Conover interview if Joe hadn't contested what he said in a real sense), but, that being more of a quantitative statement rather than a qualitative one (from what I can discern anyway) and therefore far more subjective, I wouldn't have bothered arguing it.
Are you sure about that? He does tweet all sorts of things, but one thing he mentions in the podcast periodically is that he posts articles and retweets things at times because he thinks they're interesting or funny, not necessarily because he endorses them or thinks they're true. And if he did, so what? What's that got to do with me thinking he isn't secretly on Andy Ngo's side?
The why of it doesnt matter only the what of it. And the what of it is not good
Rogan's less likely to take the Alt-Right or conservatives as a threat to society then we are. He is friends with and has a bad history of scolding the Andy Ngo's of the world, or those who send their audience into Ngo's circle since he views right wing propaganda as a valid opinion, which has he has low priority in combating on his show. He wants to be their friends, not get into disagreements with them. Of course he's either so high or ignorant that when he does so, like with Owens, he gets schooled because his research is lacking in how to break their argument down.
This reflects on why the far left appearing on his show won't help get him on their side, as the left has had plenty of opportunities to do that and he continues to default back to right wing thought when they leave his studio.
How many of his staff are on the Far Left, anyone know? I don't think Eddie Bravo's Far Left, he appears conservative to me. Who's there to reinforce the left wing message when he's not interviewing left wing guests?
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
Sure, if you ignore all that has been said in the thread before this page, you could get that idea, that Rogan is just "not 100% liberal" and the rest of us ski-mask wearing lefties are purity testing him into oblivion.
Or if you read the thread you could see that Rogan is simpathetic to the alt-right plight, not just regular conservative (if such thing still exists), but plataforming his personal friends from the alt-right. Just because Rogan likes to do drugs, doesnt make him a liberal, a lot of conservatives do drugs too.
This is a pretty wide spread theory that many political scientists hold.
Oh man, he retweeted something! A real profile in courage!
Was his tweet about Ngo followed by a mea culpa about all the smears Rogan levied at Antifa and the left that he picked up from Ngo?
Has Rogan ever brought up how he was hideously wrong about Clinton and Seth Rich? Because the clip of him making those assertions and demanding an investigation are still up there on Youtube.
Has he ever said ANYTHING to Jones about his smearing the parents of slaughtered children, or brought up how those lies fostered death threats and forced those parents out of their homes?
No? Then move along, please. If the best you've got is "well, this one time he told an MMA guy that bruh, maybe the earth isn't flat", then I think we're done here.
I mean, I COULD go through that Candace Owen's interview where he "pushes back" on her about climate change, and document all the hideous shit she does get to spew with impunity, but I'd be wasting my time just like I did with my Ngo post.
e- I'll take my "bad writing" over your weak-tea rebuttals any day of the week.
Sure and that makes sense if youre an academic studying these things
But that backlash has to be caused by underlying beliefs and prejudice. It doesnt just manifest out of nowhere. So when someone who isnt an academic cites that idea to a group of people who also arent academics theyre either saying “these beliefs are right” or “these beliefs are wrong”. They are taking a stand on the underlying cause.
When people are taking stands on the underlying cause only one side tends to talk about it in an obfuscating manner.
Am i to believe that Rogan, who regularly has alt-right people on his show is just really surprised by this study which explains the views of his guests? Or am i to believe that Rogan is normalizing the backlash as an OK thing?
Cause it sure as f reads as the latter
Or they're literally repeating the general academic consensus using less formal language
Like holy shit dude I get that yall want to paint Rogan as a vicious committed bigot so that you can side-eye Sanders and be openly dismissive of his supporters as guilty of 'ism (again) but this is laughable
If you do, no need to get into why or if you are correct or not in this particular thread, I just want to stop with the insinuations. If nobody speaks up, then Sanders' supporters are pretty similar to other Democrats and we shouldn't accuse people in this very thread of this prejudice.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I have no reason to believe they are statistically significant sample at the moment, especially in a field as large as democrats have at the moment.
As the field narrows, the amount of these people will increase, but not necessarily in relation to overall support Sanders will gain.
This is not a mark against Sanders, just an outcome of gender and racial attitudes that exist in society, and any white male candidate will attract these people in a race where there are women candidates running.
I don't think this is particularily important though, because going to Rogans podcast being bad is not out of Sanders supporters being especially vulnerable group (every group large enough will have people vulnerable).
Thank you for your statement and for agreeing to respond to this unconventional request so quickly. I believe this shows good faith, though I do not intend to imply the lack of it in people who need more time or are otherwise unavailable.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Doesnt everyone?
No. No they dont.
And in fact Joe Rogan doesnt either. But he does specifically exclaim that the left is unbearable. So i am apt to not care about claims he doesnt have those views. If he doesnt its not like i can tell the difference between him and someone who does
Rogan isn't citing an academic source, he's citing Reason. And the random libertarian writing the article does in fact directly say the backlash is wrong, and even says he has no problem with gender neutral pronouns.
Which is of course not unexpected. I'm utterly mystified by how people in this thread are trying to pin outright homophobia on a libertarian. He has publicly supported gay rights, women's rights and expressed various other libertarian views. He endorsed Gary Johnson in 2016. If he was 20 years younger he'd be citing a South Park episode every show.
Edit: the article says none of the things you claim it says. It in fact says that the backlash against progressive ideals is not a result of regressive ideals but rather a result of the abstract idea of political correctness pushing people who dont hold views contrary to what is politically correct. Edit: in that it ingores the fact that, if political correctness were an issue it requires that people hold regressive beliefs in such high regard that they would not be willing to shed them in the face of minor social pressure. If someone tells my video games are sexist* i have roughly three responses. I can either agree, not care or claim identity by the game. The article seems to imply that the last response isnt a result of deeply held beliefs or identification but rather a result of the act of pointing them out. Which is not how things work.
*and its telling that the author uses this example. You may also note that i left out “disagree” and this is because the act of “disagreeing” and the act of “claiming identity” are more or less impossible to distinguish. And because if you disagree but dont care you can still be in the “not care” position. Which would be either to personally or publicly shed the position.
like, taking Gavin McInnes, Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson as reference. Out of over 1300 episodes, he has had McInnes and Shapiro both on twice. Peterson is a more regular guest, though still in a mere fraction, but that's mainly because he talks about the kind of bullshit conspiracy theories and pseudoscience that appeals to someone like Rogan.
The vast majority of his guests are comedians and MMA folk and such. This article probably fits for a lot of them, in that they think the problem with "liberals" is not that they are wrong but that they are too zealous. Which may be a dumb opinion but is a widely shared one, importantly also among the kind of centre-right/"left"-blue-dog-democrats dickwads that form the main part of the media establishment. That Reason piece could also easily have appeared in the New York Times, for example.
Mostly the latter. The former really just in the sense that if Rogan is a problem, that problem is not that he lets people like Spencer spout their hateful and vile bullshit unchecked, because he simply doesn't. The whole idea here was that he lets the more acceptable people speak their more innocuous and mainstream sounding bullshit, and listeners would be tricked into exploring the spaces where the real shit is spoken.
Rogan is not going to nod along to Spencer advocating the formation of a white-only state. He is going to nod along to Shapiro claiming the American/European culture is superior because of enlightenment or whatever.
I never said it didn't claim the bolded. Nor did I say the theory wasn't both wrong and stupid. My point:
Guy doesn't think backlash ok.
It is literally the most obvious libertarian article you could expect. I could have written it.
But this is. Soave is from Misses even!
Edit: like... alll of this is. Its about American Alt rights on an American radio show and its effects on American elections. Where we are referencing an article written by an American libertarian from the most american school of libertarian thought discussing the effect of american society in american universities on american politics. It could almost not be more uniquely tied into the history of america
Edit: lol, forgot that this was originally about an american politician going on that show in the first place... its so about the US i literally forgot how much about the US it was
That is not what that says. He thinks that liberals are “denying people their freedoms in a legal and social sense” and that theyre rightly paying for it
That last sentence is something I've heard almost word for word from alt right folks. It's not really the defense you want it to be.
(and before anyone goes "but everyone is alt right now~"- this was someone cheering on the Unite the Right rally and making excuses for the murder of Heather Hayer, among other odious examples)
Yeah, well, he ain't fuckin' wrong
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Liberals confusing a righteous cause with good communication skills is extremely a thing.
One might hear "The Black Death killed 200 million people." followed by a Yay:D or a Nay:( and nobody would object that there were two different claims about the rightness of it.
That is, if " theyre either saying “these beliefs are right” or “these beliefs are wrong” " is true it can't also be true that they're also always saying these beliefs are right. Asserting a fact of cause and effect does not overrule that thing Hume said 300 years ago. Saying something happened is not the same as saying that the thing that happened was good.
Perhaps the left should learn not to treat anyone who disagrees with them, however mildly, as either a sub-literate imbecile or a complete moral abomination.
English is not my first language, but I'm pretty sure that "i'm not opposed to this vision, I agree with it" is not a condemnation of that vision. I think it is very uncharitable to interpret the entire statement/article as saying it is right that the backlash happened. The consequences of doing the wrong thing aren't always a positive.
Yes, because that's definitely an issue that only the left has on the Internet.
Holy hell, treating people you don't like as "a complete moral abomination" is basically the playbook of the GOP!
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
It would also be nice if the left learned that everyone who pointed out their failings was not axiomatically doing so out of support for their ideological opponents.
I'll again ask you to present me with a criticism that cannot be applied in equal (if not greater) measure to the right.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
My point is that that there being other libertarians has nothing to with anything in this thread but American libertarianism and understanding it is fundamental to be able to undertand the context of what is being said. Everything in this thread is relevant to the american experience and history and its form of libertarians.
Re: “i am not opposed to this vision”. What youre missing here is the context. Its the “i have a black friend” or “i am just asking questions” defense. There is a reason that conservative libertarians come to the defense of white nationalists when they “have their free speech rights violated” but they dont come to the defense of liberals or left wing radicals when the same happens. He says that he supports it but he does not argue in favor of it. He argues against it. He argues for letting people against it speak and against letting people who are for it argue against them.
Why is he not arguing for the free speech rights of people who dont want to associate with milo and pressure the universities they attend to not host that speech on their behalf? Why doesnt he argue for the free speech rights of Lena Dunham? Rather than complain that “liberals sent her after conservatives”(like what?).
Well because he doesnt want to argue for those positions. He is the classic example of a concern troll.
Edit: my favorite political saying is GWBs version of “fool me once”. Its absolutely just perfect. It sounds folksy and keeps the spirit of the saying without actually saying “shame on me” so as to give every political opponent a handy clip to run in every campaign ad until the end of time.
This is, however, where are are at. The “cant be fooled again” stage. Weve had lucy pull that football out one too many times.
I understand that this confuses you but it's entirely possible for one to find the GOP repugnant and utterly devoid of merit and still believe that the outright glee with which the left castigates anyone who fails their purity tests to be A Problem.
See also: this conversation, where you're trying to paint me as a crypto-fascist based on [checks notes] a frustrated one-line joke. Also, this conversation rather proves the point of that joke, so, you know, thanks!
Would love for you to show me where I painted you as a crypto-fascist.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
This is an extremely weird argument in the context of the libertarian under discussion letting the left wing radicals give their whole thing on his show. Your argument here seems to be that in context these guys are just cynically using libertarian ideas to promote the conservative agenda. Which may be true for Soave i guess, but doesn't work for Rogan. These guys don't come to the defense of left wing radicals except for letting them do exactly what the other side does on his show?
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Cause i could have sworn we had already cleared up those misconceptions
*refering to peoples whose job is politics: this just to preempt the “oh he totally talked to this person and theyre liberal” and ignoring that they may be liberal as a fact and not in a way that matters
Please explain the point of questioning why I'm not calling out the GOP (twice) if not to attempt to imply (twice) that I have no problem with the GOP's shitty behavior.
Like, I'm not stupid, dude, I know what you're doing, and so does everyone else.