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

13468927

Posts

  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    edited August 8
    One point of view: Rogan's podcast is dangerous and bad because his style and general lack of strong ideological study leads to having shitassery propelled into the mainstream thanks to his large viewership

    Another Point of View: I agree it's bad, but does that deny the possibility we can utilize that viewership to our advantage in propogating our own message with a crowd that will otherwise not come into contact with it?


    In other words, your conflict is such: Does the ethical implication of his other guests effects on the viewership outweight the strategic value of borrowing his already existing, entrenched platform to spread your message

    Lanz on
    waNkm4k.jpg?1
    override367
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. 5386-8443-8937Registered User regular
    Whats so fucking weird about this argument is that it would have us believe their audience is better off only hearing from right wingers.

    Dee KaeWhiteZinfandelJuliusKoopahTroopah
  • AbbalahAbbalah Registered User regular
    Whats so fucking weird about this argument is that it would have us believe their audience is better off only hearing from right wingers.

    No, it would have us believe that the audience is better off smaller and without the legitimacy of a left-wing politician to use as a shield against criticism of the source.

    The problem isn't that Rogan's audience heard Bernie's argument. The problem is that Rogan's audience heard Bernie's argument and got bigger and got an easy way to deflect criticism of the dangerous people he brings on the show, and the second two things are more important than the first one.

    jmcdonaldAngelHedgiePantsBTetraNitroCubaneSleepNo-QuarterKamarFencingsaxQuidThawmusKristmas KthulhuElldrenLord_AsmodeusDarkewolfesanstodo
  • HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    Abbalah wrote: »
    Whats so fucking weird about this argument is that it would have us believe their audience is better off only hearing from right wingers.

    No, it would have us believe that the audience is better off smaller and without the legitimacy of a left-wing politician to use as a shield against criticism of the source.

    The problem isn't that Rogan's audience heard Bernie's argument. The problem is that Rogan's audience heard Bernie's argument and got bigger and got an easy way to deflect criticism of the dangerous people he brings on the show, and the second two things are more important than the first one.

    With 6 million subs I really don't think he needs a bump from Bernie.

    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
    TryCatcherStyrofoam Sammichoverride367NSDFRandDee KaeYamiB.KoopahTroopah
  • override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    edited August 8
    judging by Rogan's reddit, his audience seems to be split between a few thoughts "who cares man, all politicians are crooks, you wanna do mdma?", "fucking sanders left wing cuck", "I wasn't going to vote but I might vote for this guy" and "why can't the MSM have discussions like this with political candidates"

    im actually listening to the interview now and I can agree with the last one

    override367 on
    Styrofoam SammichStabbity StyleDee Kae
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. 5386-8443-8937Registered User regular
    Abbalah wrote: »
    Whats so fucking weird about this argument is that it would have us believe their audience is better off only hearing from right wingers.

    No, it would have us believe that the audience is better off smaller and without the legitimacy of a left-wing politician to use as a shield against criticism of the source.

    The problem isn't that Rogan's audience heard Bernie's argument. The problem is that Rogan's audience heard Bernie's argument and got bigger and got an easy way to deflect criticism of the dangerous people he brings on the show, and the second two things are more important than the first one.

    Hownmuch do you think Sanders appearing on one of the most popular podcasts in the country is going to increase its regular viewership?

  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Abbalah wrote: »
    Whats so fucking weird about this argument is that it would have us believe their audience is better off only hearing from right wingers.

    No, it would have us believe that the audience is better off smaller and without the legitimacy of a left-wing politician to use as a shield against criticism of the source.

    The problem isn't that Rogan's audience heard Bernie's argument. The problem is that Rogan's audience heard Bernie's argument and got bigger and got an easy way to deflect criticism of the dangerous people he brings on the show, and the second two things are more important than the first one.

    With 6 million subs I really don't think he needs a bump from Bernie.

    yeah this is the thing, this isn't a fringe program. There are nationally viewed television programs whose producers would probably kill for that kind of viewerbase.

    So at that point it's not a question of "will this make the thing more popular?" It's "Do I avoid it because I don't think his guests are healthy for the discourse, or do I try to utilize it for my own goals"

    waNkm4k.jpg?1
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    There's also outside of that 6 million the people who go "wait, the fear factor guy? did he make Bernie eat a bug?"

    waNkm4k.jpg?1
    Captain InertiaJuliusKoopahTroopahAistan
  • HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    This all seems to be part of the same idea that we can eliminate people believing bad things by quarantine of said bad ideas and speech of said bad ideas. Which beyond being ethically troubling is just downright impractical.

    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
    Styrofoam SammichNSDFRandrahkeesh2000FrankiedarlingSolventJulius
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. 5386-8443-8937Registered User regular
    You can't combat right wing recruiting if you think you're too good to push yourself into their spaces.

    rahkeesh2000Meeqe
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    This all seems to be part of the same idea that we can eliminate people believing bad things by quarantine of said bad ideas and speech of said bad ideas. Which beyond being ethically troubling is just downright impractical.

    First off, let's stop with the euphemistic language. Homophobia is not a "bad idea". Racism is not a "bad idea". Hate is not a "bad idea". Second, why should we legitimize hate in our discourse? Why should we give the argument that some people are inferior because of their skin, gender, orientation, creed, etc. legitimacy?

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
    TetraNitroCubaneFANTOMAS
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. 5386-8443-8937Registered User regular
    edited August 8
    If this devolves into another "everyone has to use my specific terminology" thing we should just call it a day now.

    Styrofoam Sammich on
    MrMisterNSDFRandWhiteZinfandelMonwynFrankiedarlingSolventJuliusShadowhopeCaedwyr
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    edited August 8
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    This all seems to be part of the same idea that we can eliminate people believing bad things by quarantine of said bad ideas and speech of said bad ideas. Which beyond being ethically troubling is just downright impractical.

    First off, let's stop with the euphemistic language. Homophobia is not a "bad idea". Racism is not a "bad idea". Hate is not a "bad idea". Second, why should we legitimize hate in our discourse? Why should we give the argument that some people are inferior because of their skin, gender, orientation, creed, etc. legitimacy?

    Hedge I doubt Ham disagrees with you that they're not just "bad ideas;" it's a fast moving thread and we're all trying to cover a lot of complicated shit as quickly as possible before the next flood of posts hit.

    But more to the point, I think Ham has a point: at some point, someone has to fucking get into the trenches and fight this shit and offer an alternative where these toxic ideas are starting to circulate. You can be pissed about the effect Rogan's podcast is having, I'm sure we all are there with you, but it's still 6 million people who become vectors for those ideas and values. We can't just ignore that. If Rogan's going to have people on, then hell, let's get some counterprogramming going on, evne moreso if you can chart the conversation to directly go after points his more noxious guests have made.

    Lanz on
    waNkm4k.jpg?1
    TryCatcher
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    You can't combat right wing recruiting if you think you're too good to push yourself into their spaces.

    At some point you have to climb into the other side's trench to press forward.

    waNkm4k.jpg?1
    Styrofoam SammichFrankiedarlingMeeqe
  • SleepSleep Registered User regular
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    Why would I devote three hours of listening time to a guy that has people like Alex Jones, Ben Shapiro, Milo Yiannopoulos, Adam Carrola, and Candace Owens on?

    Honest question.

    Like, if Rogan has decent guests on and decent discussions at times, that's a damn shame, because I'm still not really interested in hearing from someone that gives a platform to people like the smear merchants above.

    Then dont listen to him, but Sanders got 3 million views in like a day on YouTube alone for this. Any candidate who passes up a friendly venue to spread their message to that large an audience is an idiot.

    Would Sanders not have had those same numbers had he gone on Rogan's show and called him out on his bullshit?

    edit- If Bernie had gone on there and said "Hey Joe, before we begin let's have a chat about the alt-right and Seth Rich, and why you keep playing footsie with these people" we would be having a very different discussion right now.

    Id rather he spend the time talking about health care and taxes, instead of some quixotic haranguing. Seems more productive.

    I mean considering your condemnation of the entire democratic party for taking this same tac this seems like a double standard.

    MarathonjmcdonaldHarry DresdenshrykeFencingsaxElldren
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. 5386-8443-8937Registered User regular
    edited August 8
    Sleep wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    Why would I devote three hours of listening time to a guy that has people like Alex Jones, Ben Shapiro, Milo Yiannopoulos, Adam Carrola, and Candace Owens on?

    Honest question.

    Like, if Rogan has decent guests on and decent discussions at times, that's a damn shame, because I'm still not really interested in hearing from someone that gives a platform to people like the smear merchants above.

    Then dont listen to him, but Sanders got 3 million views in like a day on YouTube alone for this. Any candidate who passes up a friendly venue to spread their message to that large an audience is an idiot.

    Would Sanders not have had those same numbers had he gone on Rogan's show and called him out on his bullshit?

    edit- If Bernie had gone on there and said "Hey Joe, before we begin let's have a chat about the alt-right and Seth Rich, and why you keep playing footsie with these people" we would be having a very different discussion right now.

    Id rather he spend the time talking about health care and taxes, instead of some quixotic haranguing. Seems more productive.

    I mean considering your condemnation of the entire democratic party for taking this same tac this seems like a double standard.

    I dont know what you're talking about but until Rogan returns my calls Im not the subject here.

    Styrofoam Sammich on
    Julius
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    edited August 8
    and borrowing this from the other thread that spawned this:
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    The difference between, say, the NYT and CNN and Rogan is that Rogan actively encourages those views. NYT and CNN are journalists that have shitty headlinewriters, and so they pushback against those views (and also engage in shitty journalism with some amount of frequency), but not nearly strong enough.

    @Fencingsax

    I feel like this downplays the damage the New York Times and CNN has done to discourse in this country, and ignores again how happy they have been to buddy up to white supremacist fascism for whatever fucking reason is going on. See again: The Fashionable Nazi discourse of a few years ago.


    Honestly, thinking about it, CNN's Jeff Zucker is probably a more dangerous media figure than Rogan could ever be and we just kind of take it for granted.

    Lanz on
    waNkm4k.jpg?1
    Styrofoam SammichElendilJuliusMeeqeCaedwyr
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    edited August 8
    Sleep wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    Why would I devote three hours of listening time to a guy that has people like Alex Jones, Ben Shapiro, Milo Yiannopoulos, Adam Carrola, and Candace Owens on?

    Honest question.

    Like, if Rogan has decent guests on and decent discussions at times, that's a damn shame, because I'm still not really interested in hearing from someone that gives a platform to people like the smear merchants above.

    Then dont listen to him, but Sanders got 3 million views in like a day on YouTube alone for this. Any candidate who passes up a friendly venue to spread their message to that large an audience is an idiot.

    Would Sanders not have had those same numbers had he gone on Rogan's show and called him out on his bullshit?

    edit- If Bernie had gone on there and said "Hey Joe, before we begin let's have a chat about the alt-right and Seth Rich, and why you keep playing footsie with these people" we would be having a very different discussion right now.

    Id rather he spend the time talking about health care and taxes, instead of some quixotic haranguing. Seems more productive.

    I mean considering your condemnation of the entire democratic party for taking this same tac this seems like a double standard.

    I dont know what you're talking about but until Rogan returns my calls Im not the subject here.

    I think Sleep is talking about the fact we tend to complain about the focus the Democratic party has on Healthcare and Taxes when they should be pursuing impeachment of clear impeachable offenses by the president.

    Which I think kind of flattens out the nuance a good bit because they're two entirely different sets of issues, one of which is a dereliction of duty of accountability as enshrined in the Constitution, the other is an issue of the ethics of campaign public relations, and so focusing on spreading one's position and argument on healthcare and taxes makes sense while running a political campaign for president, while the other is... you know, trying to turn the subject away from the uncomfortable fact that no one is impeaching the man who keeps doing impeachable shit and hoping you can offload that responsibility to the voters.

    Lanz on
    waNkm4k.jpg?1
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    It's sorta like, I dunno, a more extreme version of "Should you go on Crossfire" back in the early 2000s

    The show was godawful bullshit and you even had bowtie era Tuck on there. But then you get Jon Stewart going on and eviscerating the bullshit so succinctly that the show just kind of fell apart, stumbled and then got canned.

    waNkm4k.jpg?1
    Julius
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. 5386-8443-8937Registered User regular
    Not really the same thing. Management apparently hated the show and was looking for a way out.

  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    edited August 8
    Not really the same thing. Management apparently hated the show and was looking for a way out.

    Everything I knew and believed is a lie.

    EDIT: That said, on a serious note, watching it again I think there is something of a parallel there, because for the most part, that audience is pretty much only getting bullshit until someone goes on and actually gives a narrative counter to the bullshit the hosts are regularly feeding into the discourse.

    In Bernie's case it's more just making his pitch instead of a Stewart-esque (and literal!) "You're hurting America."

    Lanz on
    waNkm4k.jpg?1
    Sleep
  • ElendilElendil Registered User regular
    the nyt probably swung the election by *checks notes* platforming clinton conspiracy theories

    jmcdonaldSleepTryCatchershrykeFencingsaxQuidYamiB.ThawmusKristmas KthulhuElldrenKraintStabbity Style
  • jmcdonaldjmcdonald I voted, did you? DC(ish)Registered User regular
    Lanz wrote: »
    It's sorta like, I dunno, a more extreme version of "Should you go on Crossfire" back in the early 2000s

    The show was godawful bullshit and you even had bowtie era Tuck on there. But then you get Jon Stewart going on and eviscerating the bullshit so succinctly that the show just kind of fell apart, stumbled and then got canned.

    Bernie Sanders is no Jon Stewart

    shryke wrote: »
    ...Barack "charisma isn't a dump stat, nerds" Obama...
    Harry DresdenFencingsaxThawmusAistan
  • No-QuarterNo-Quarter Nothing To Fear But Fear ItselfRegistered User regular
    Lanz, I appreciate you trying to bridge the divide in good faith.

    Captain InertiaThawmusForar
  • MrMisterMrMister A pup must first get in the water to be successful as a seal!Registered User regular
    edited August 8
    Claims about how going on Rogan will or won't affect his viewership, and how his viewership will or won't bleed into viewing other guests that he's had on his show--like Alex Jones or, uh, Cornell West--and claims about how viewing those other channels will lead to uptake, and in whom, claims about how this will affect revenue and claims about how this will lead viewers to change their perceptions of the show itself, these are all ostensibly causal claims that aim to characterize extremely complicated social systems.

    It is easy to tell just so stories in this context and extremely hard to verify them. Just so stories about the effect that this appearance will have usually conform to the person telling them's priors, to convenience and wishful thinking, and are almost never checked for accuracy after the fact. Even if someone checked, they are almost never even spelled out in concrete enough terms to be able to check them against data. In the overheated atmosphere of contemporary politics, the form these stories take seems to be a manicheanism which views negatively valenced social forces as all intimately connected and easily, obviously linked into a menacing network. Sometimes, you see the language of infection and disease used, which triggers a purity/disgust frame and is notoriously good for getting people to do bad stuff without thinking about it too hard (cf Baltimore being "infested," etc).

    I don't know who Rogan's viewers are more likely to follow up with. I don't know how many Sanders viewers are going to be Rogan-curious. In general, single social interventions don't have large average effects--most people are subject to billions of nudges in all sorts of directions, and the but-for effect of changing a single video viewed is almost always negligible. In terms of evidence that this is a gateway drug, I'm not seeing much more than the fact that he's a looney, that he told a really gross joke, and that he's had some really unfortunate people on his show. Surely some of his viewers have followed Jones after! Some of them have surely become alt right. And yeah, people also went on from trying Marijuana to trying cocaine and meth. But being a gateway drug isn't just about whether people did try other drugs after, it's a question about the status of Marijuana in the causal picture leading to later hard drug use. And so too with Rogan. Rogan bleeding some viewers into Jones doesn't ipso facto make him a converted any more than some people moving from marijuana to crack makes marijuana into the thing panicked social conservatives thought.

    And this judgment is one step removed! It's "you legitimated Marijuana, a gateway drug, by going to a party where Marijuana was being smoked in order to talk about safe drug use"

    "But MrMister, you just said: 'I'm not seeing much more than the fact that he's a racist looney and he's had some really unfortunate people on his show.' Isn't that enough??" It's enough to say he may be a creep, but whether he's a creep is neither here nor there with respect to the causal question about converts and broader social effects and all that. That's the point. The causal question doesn't reduce to everything we don't like being connected in every conceivable way.

    What I suspect drives some of this is not the actual causal claim that Rogan promotes alt-right-itude. Rather, I suspect some of this is just driven by the thought that he is shitty, and you shouldn't hang out with shitty people. You shouldn't talk to them. You shouldn't "legitimize" them, not because of any particular consequences (consequences being a causal notion, and complicated, as above) but because it is intrinsically bad and unvirtuous. But I reject that. Joe Rogan's viewers have votes, as they should. They should use them wisely. In a democracy we are civic equals, and talking to anyone who will listen is presumptively a good thing.

    MrMister on
    Crimson KingWhiteZinfandelMonwynXrddFrankiedarlingFuzzy Cumulonimbus CloudSolventSummaryJudgmentuserJuliusDamnItCohaagenspool32sanstodo
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. 5386-8443-8937Registered User regular
    Elendil wrote: »
    the nyt probably swung the election by *checks notes* platforming clinton conspiracy theories

    I assume that everyone has equal disdain for candidates being interviewed in the times

    PreacherNo-QuarterTryCatcherMonwynThawmus
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    jmcdonald wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    It's sorta like, I dunno, a more extreme version of "Should you go on Crossfire" back in the early 2000s

    The show was godawful bullshit and you even had bowtie era Tuck on there. But then you get Jon Stewart going on and eviscerating the bullshit so succinctly that the show just kind of fell apart, stumbled and then got canned.

    Bernie Sanders is no Jon Stewart

    I mean, I'm not sure he needs to be or fits the same role, especially at the moment. Sanders is actively compaigning so his goal here is to feed his policies and views into the discourse, so attacking Rogan directly risks alienating the audience he's looking to make into converts.

    Jon's role, as much as he'd shirk it off for the safety of "comedian" when pressed on it, was basically to tear down institutionalized bullshit.

    waNkm4k.jpg?1
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    Elendil wrote: »
    the nyt probably swung the election by *checks notes* platforming clinton conspiracy theories

    I assume that everyone has equal disdain for candidates being interviewed in the times

    I sure as shit do. Especially with their recent bullshit. But Haberman is a cancer at that paper and her access stenography of what Ivanka and Jared want as a narrative would be something I want all candidates to avoid.

    I'd say the same with CNN or any show bringing on a white supremacist like Richard Spencer, or alex jones or even Kelly Anne Conway.

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

    Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
    jmcdonaldAngelHedgieThawmusKristmas KthulhuElldren
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    Lanz, I appreciate you trying to bridge the divide in good faith.

    At some point my brain just clicked and the mechanics and subtext of the forum's discourse became a fascinating thing I liked to try and understand the workings of.

    waNkm4k.jpg?1
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    Preacher wrote: »
    Elendil wrote: »
    the nyt probably swung the election by *checks notes* platforming clinton conspiracy theories

    I assume that everyone has equal disdain for candidates being interviewed in the times

    I sure as shit do. Especially with their recent bullshit. But Haberman is a cancer at that paper and her access stenography of what Ivanka and Jared want as a narrative would be something I want all candidates to avoid.

    I'd say the same with CNN or any show bringing on a white supremacist like Richard Spencer, or alex jones or even Kelly Anne Conway.

    Reminder with CNN, Zucker's explicitly on record as loving all this shit as it's good for ratings in his view.

    waNkm4k.jpg?1
    Captain Inertia
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. 5386-8443-8937Registered User regular
    Preacher wrote: »
    Elendil wrote: »
    the nyt probably swung the election by *checks notes* platforming clinton conspiracy theories

    I assume that everyone has equal disdain for candidates being interviewed in the times

    I sure as shit do. Especially with their recent bullshit. But Haberman is a cancer at that paper and her access stenography of what Ivanka and Jared want as a narrative would be something I want all candidates to avoid.

    I'd say the same with CNN or any show bringing on a white supremacist like Richard Spencer, or alex jones or even Kelly Anne Conway.

    So what are the Approved major platforms?

  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    Lanz wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    Elendil wrote: »
    the nyt probably swung the election by *checks notes* platforming clinton conspiracy theories

    I assume that everyone has equal disdain for candidates being interviewed in the times

    I sure as shit do. Especially with their recent bullshit. But Haberman is a cancer at that paper and her access stenography of what Ivanka and Jared want as a narrative would be something I want all candidates to avoid.

    I'd say the same with CNN or any show bringing on a white supremacist like Richard Spencer, or alex jones or even Kelly Anne Conway.

    Reminder with CNN, Zucker's explicitly on record as loving all this shit as it's good for ratings in his view.

    And that's why I wouldn't want candidates to appear there. Old media is crooked bullshit backed by people who scream both sides but consistenly side with right wing framing. Candidates can get their messages out better now, and the less we rely on the previous gate keepers the faster they'll be a museum exhibit.

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

    Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
    Elldren
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    Preacher wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    Elendil wrote: »
    the nyt probably swung the election by *checks notes* platforming clinton conspiracy theories

    I assume that everyone has equal disdain for candidates being interviewed in the times

    I sure as shit do. Especially with their recent bullshit. But Haberman is a cancer at that paper and her access stenography of what Ivanka and Jared want as a narrative would be something I want all candidates to avoid.

    I'd say the same with CNN or any show bringing on a white supremacist like Richard Spencer, or alex jones or even Kelly Anne Conway.

    Reminder with CNN, Zucker's explicitly on record as loving all this shit as it's good for ratings in his view.

    And that's why I wouldn't want candidates to appear there. Old media is crooked bullshit backed by people who scream both sides but consistenly side with right wing framing. Candidates can get their messages out better now, and the less we rely on the previous gate keepers the faster they'll be a museum exhibit.

    Ultimately the problem is, the platform's there and its entrenched and there's enough corporate money backing it that any attempt to boycott is going to more than likely hurt you more than them.

    Which leads us back to: "Dive into that trench and give them hell."

    waNkm4k.jpg?1
  • No-QuarterNo-Quarter Nothing To Fear But Fear ItselfRegistered User regular
    Elendil wrote: »
    the nyt probably swung the election by *checks notes* platforming clinton conspiracy theories

    I assume that everyone has equal disdain for candidates being interviewed in the times

    Regardless of the content of the interview itself with regards AOC and company, Pelosi interviewing with Dowd pissed me off because Dowd was a principal hatchet-woman on Clinton.

    I remember her fawning "Clinton the Hawk, Trump the Dove" bullshit

    Harry Dresden
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    I'm not sure why my mind keeps going back to world war I but it seems distressingly apt.

    waNkm4k.jpg?1
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    Lanz wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    Elendil wrote: »
    the nyt probably swung the election by *checks notes* platforming clinton conspiracy theories

    I assume that everyone has equal disdain for candidates being interviewed in the times

    I sure as shit do. Especially with their recent bullshit. But Haberman is a cancer at that paper and her access stenography of what Ivanka and Jared want as a narrative would be something I want all candidates to avoid.

    I'd say the same with CNN or any show bringing on a white supremacist like Richard Spencer, or alex jones or even Kelly Anne Conway.

    Reminder with CNN, Zucker's explicitly on record as loving all this shit as it's good for ratings in his view.

    And that's why I wouldn't want candidates to appear there. Old media is crooked bullshit backed by people who scream both sides but consistenly side with right wing framing. Candidates can get their messages out better now, and the less we rely on the previous gate keepers the faster they'll be a museum exhibit.

    Ultimately the problem is, the platform's there and its entrenched and there's enough corporate money backing it that any attempt to boycott is going to more than likely hurt you more than them.

    Which leads us back to: "Dive into that trench and give them hell."

    Dive into what trench though? I mean the candidates went on CNN dealt with right wing framing of questions and being cut off while trying to give their answers. What does it matter if you interview for the times one day, when they run 8 days of editorials and horseshit from right wing sources about how you're bankrupting america?

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

    Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    Lanz wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    This all seems to be part of the same idea that we can eliminate people believing bad things by quarantine of said bad ideas and speech of said bad ideas. Which beyond being ethically troubling is just downright impractical.

    First off, let's stop with the euphemistic language. Homophobia is not a "bad idea". Racism is not a "bad idea". Hate is not a "bad idea". Second, why should we legitimize hate in our discourse? Why should we give the argument that some people are inferior because of their skin, gender, orientation, creed, etc. legitimacy?

    Hedge I doubt Ham disagrees with you that they're not just "bad ideas;" it's a fast moving thread and we're all trying to cover a lot of complicated shit as quickly as possible before the next flood of posts hit.

    But more to the point, I think Ham has a point: at some point, someone has to fucking get into the trenches and fight this shit and offer an alternative where these toxic ideas are starting to circulate. You can be pissed about the effect Rogan's podcast is having, I'm sure we all are there with you, but it's still 6 million people who become vectors for those ideas and values. We can't just ignore that. If Rogan's going to have people on, then hell, let's get some counterprogramming going on, evne moreso if you can chart the conversation to directly go after points his more noxious guests have made.

    Bernie is not going to convert them all with one interview. Better people than him have tried to no avail. Rogan could have had more people on the left at any opportunity, he's not inclined with that direction for his podcast.

  • -Tal-Tal Registered User regular
    Rogan sucks but I'm pretty compelled by the argument that he isn't actually more dangerous than most respectable mainstream outlets that also coddle nazis

    2vue7ao.png
    Styrofoam SammichTryCatcherJuliusjungleroomxKoopahTroopahStabbity StyleMeeqeAistan
  • JepheryJephery Registered User regular
    To be fair, some of Bernie's platform does fall apart under too much intellectual scrutiny (IIRC his platform on trade isn't that far from Trump's, less racist but almost as protectionist), so Rogan's podcast where he can say "I will legalize weed by executive order" and not get called out on much is perfect for him.

    }
    "Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
  • NinjeffNinjeff Registered User regular
    From someone who listens to most of Joe Rogans podcast, I feel like I have to reiterate how wrong most of you are.

    From a personal space, nothing has done more to drive me away from "the left" than discussions exactly like this one. Where is is clear -to me at least- that so many aren't at all interested in any type of discussion that voids a preconceived notion. People seem downright convinced that Rogan is some bastion of alt right that no amount of me, a person who listens and knows that isn't the case, can away them.
    I guess growing up in the Bush2 era and working to get Obama elected I really honestly believed that the left was the party of reason and civility and discourse.
    But stuff like the rampant insistence that Rogan is some alt right shill just....
    Kind of make me ask what happened to the party I used to believe in.

    Rogan has left leaning views on damn near everything, Bernie did a good job and so have a plethora of other people on the JRE. After years of listening to his podcast my views (politicaly) haven't changed but threads like this with so much wailing and gnashing of teeth just really make me feel terribly lonely here in my middle left seat.
    I swear we didn't used to be so goddamn afraid of everyone even if they didn't 100% line up with us.

    Personal anicdote? All my friends that were "bleeding heart liberals" are starting to feel the same way. Any democratic candidate will have our vote this election, but I swear hardcore left rhetoric is going to leave tons of voters off the table in the congressional elections which is really where the progress needs to happen.

    MrMisterFrankiedarlingSolventJuliusMeeqe
Sign In or Register to comment.