Warren needs to build a base to defeat Sanders and Biden. Sanders has already done multiple appearances on FOX and Biden is unlikely to attack the network very directly (not part of his "uniter" brand). She wants to pick up voters who are disillusioned by both of those positions while emphasizing a "Fighter" ethos. This is an easy way to do that.
Should no candidates go on shock jock type radio shows? What kind of criteria are we talking here?
Sure, I don’t think any candidate from the Democratic side should go on a show where they openly promote conspiracy theories (even if it wasn’t on the episode they appeared on), or a show that’s disgustingly misogynistic like how Stern’s was.
I don’t think that sets the bar unacceptably high by any means. If anything it’s pretty low.
I completely disagree. Was Harris wrong to appear on the Breakfast Club? Was Warren wrong to do so as well?
If they frequently discuss how Hillary Clinton murdered Seth Rich or have women take their clothes off in the studio, then yes it would be wrong for them to appear on the show.
And this is, of course, completely ignoring that the Breakfast Club has wide appeal in the African American community, you know, a community that actually supports Democrats.
So as long as its for the team it's ok to truck with conspiracy theories?
What conspiracy theories do they push in the Breakfast Club?
Alternatively; is it somehow ok to push conspiracy theories that benefit Bernie?
re alternatively: why would you think that when I have explicitly stated my stance multiple times?
What conspiracy theories are promoted by the breakfast club?
I’ll also point out that you’re example featuring Warren was from her appearance in the show. So she did as able to respond in the moment.
My argument was that you were ok with it if it was for the team. We can ignore people's problems if they are on our team.
There is a far, far cry in difference between someone's opinions on a show and literal lies.
If any leftwing show starts peddling conspiracy and lies then yeah, I'd rather candidates avoided those as well.
Uh locking Trans people up if they don't reveal they are trans before you have sex with them is one of the many opinions Charlemagne had about women. It isn't a slight difference in opinion.
It's a pretty disgusting opinion! It is still not the same as espousing outright lies, as much as you seem to want to conflate the two.
Show of hands, how many people actually listen to Rogans podcast?
And, by listen, i dont mean go to youtube to find edited clips of ______ that support ______. I mean actually consistently listen to all or most of his podcasts weekly?
Because i do, and i have to say, any accusations of him being "a shill for the right" is kind of funny.
Granted, i wasnt thrilled he let Alex Jones run rampant for 4 hours (although it was 100% hilarious how off Jones is) but i truly got the impression Rogan knew he coudlnt do anything to point out the crazy better than Alex Jones was doing to himself.
Still, i dont mind the right wing people on there, same as i dont mind the left. Most people usually have something interesting to say, and its up to my developed brain to decide if i want to agree. Rogan is the first one to say he isnt around to play "gotcha" with guests of any political stripe, but instead wants to just talk to people and see what comes up. I respect that, and frankly, think we could all do with a bit more of it. Sometimes i wish he'd call out points better than he does, but thats ok because i still get turned on to a lot of guests ideas or perspectives i wouldnt have in a different setting. Cornell West was a great example of framing things i wouldnt have thought of otherwise, and turned out to be a far more entertaining guest that i anticipated.
Thank you for providing your perspective!
I legit cant tell if you're being honest or doing a condescending "bless your heart" thing that wont get nailed by mods.
Should no candidates go on shock jock type radio shows? What kind of criteria are we talking here?
Sure, I don’t think any candidate from the Democratic side should go on a show where they openly promote conspiracy theories (even if it wasn’t on the episode they appeared on), or a show that’s disgustingly misogynistic like how Stern’s was.
I don’t think that sets the bar unacceptably high by any means. If anything it’s pretty low.
I completely disagree. Was Harris wrong to appear on the Breakfast Club? Was Warren wrong to do so as well?
If they frequently discuss how Hillary Clinton murdered Seth Rich or have women take their clothes off in the studio, then yes it would be wrong for them to appear on the show.
And this is, of course, completely ignoring that the Breakfast Club has wide appeal in the African American community, you know, a community that actually supports Democrats.
So as long as its for the team it's ok to truck with conspiracy theories?
What conspiracy theories do they push in the Breakfast Club?
Alternatively; is it somehow ok to push conspiracy theories that benefit Bernie?
re alternatively: why would you think that when I have explicitly stated my stance multiple times?
What conspiracy theories are promoted by the breakfast club?
I’ll also point out that you’re example featuring Warren was from her appearance in the show. So she did as able to respond in the moment.
My argument was that you were ok with it if it was for the team. We can ignore people's problems if they are on our team.
There is a far, far cry in difference between someone's opinions on a show and literal lies.
If any leftwing show starts peddling conspiracy and lies then yeah, I'd rather candidates avoided those as well.
Uh locking Trans people up if they don't reveal they are trans before you have sex with them is one of the many opinions Charlemagne had about women. It isn't a slight difference in opinion.
It's a pretty disgusting opinion! It is still not the same as espousing outright lies, as much as you seem to want to conflate the two.
You're saying there is less harm with that opinion? I'd say it's worse cause it's not even a conspiracy theory.
Pretty much every time a Dem goes on a right wing news source, unless they're tearing in to the hosts themselves, I can't help but feel they'd be much better served going just about anywhere else.
Go shake hands in a battleground district or something.
So which sources are acceptable to go on? Because pretty much all of the platforms we have going to a wide audience are right-wing and racist.
There are plenty of options beyond Fox News and Rogan.
I also didn't say it was unacceptable. Just a waste of time. The people consuming Fox News are the same ones outright denying reality when confronted with it. There's no appealing to them.
This is almost as bad as accusing the North Korean people of being brain washed. There is always a way in. If you never try you wont find it though.
The last decade has demonstrated otherwise.
American conservatives are a group whose ideals repeatedly revolve around obtaining power at any cost for those with an R by their name and denying anything and everything that contradicts with what they claim to be true.
The day they decide to grow up and approach society like adults is the day when trying to appeal to them is worthwhile.
If you put the barrier of entry to the rest of society as immediately and completely renouncing all they once believed in you will never get anything other than a middle finger as a response.
There isn't a middle position on stuff like LGBT rights or 'racism is bad'.
Also the right wing media is like, active fucking grifters whose entire entire paycheck is based on middle fingers and not changing their minds. It's stuff like PragerU presenting itself as a faux educational channel while peddling lies and being funded by billionaire frackers or Stephen Crowder insisting 'Socialism is for F*gs' actually is calling socialist Figs. So even for stuff where there is some theoretical magical middle ground of only killing X people due to medical poverty or whatever is still a joke because they're lying about where the middle is from their point of view.
I'm not talking about agreeing to a middle ground on racism/sexism/etc. I agree there is none.
I'm talking about maybe they've reached a breaking point and are sick and tired about gun violence and want something to be done about it, so you explain all the things that could be done and how pretty much everyone that shows any initative to do something about it are Democrats. Then you might talk about other things you're fairly sure they would agree on, like more affordable health care or fixing gerrymandering (both of which have popularity across the aile) It's once you get them thinking about (or more than thinking) about actually voting D, you can start (politely) calling out on the racism and sexism and all the other awful stuff.
But you don't go "why do you care now? You're a racist hick that have no problems when a cop guns down an unarmed man as long as they're black or brown."
I remember former talk show jock Charlie Sykes saying that the best thing about getting fired for being an Anti-Trumper is that he now feels free to express an opinion that doesn't half to adhere to GoP dogma. You get them to stop thinking of themselves a "always Republican" you got at in that let's you tear down all the other awful ideas they've been fed until they've been made to believe them.
This would be a great point if the last decade had not being a slow slide right in many countries while weak ass liberal ‘we’re the middle between these assholes and good’ parties flounder.
I have no desire to describe all right wing folks as some silly skin head stereotype. Im just exceptionally sure they aren’t going to be mollified by polite and meek debate. Hands reached across the aisle just yank to the right.
Do you think that is a valid fear in this instance?
Honestly I couldn’t say. My knowledge of Joe Rogan is basically zilch.
I was just addressing the idea that there’s value in reaching out to right wing voters on platforms biased to the right.
Time and again, shows like Fox News air left wing candidates stating their actual views.
The show then immediately lies about those views.
Their viewership accepts these lies and derides those candidates. Nothing changes.
I am indeed quite content with not lending these shows any more legitimacy than they already hold. That time is easily better spent on a photo op in a battleground state or fundraising or just about anything else, really.
Joe Rogan doesn't really do that, though, as far as I'm aware.
He instead promotes made up conspiracy theories against candidates he doesn't like.
It's not really a meaningful difference for me.
He's known for not believing we landed on the moon. I don't even think it has anything to do with politics. He just seems to like conspiracies.
woof i dont want to turn into the resident "defend rogan" guy, but he is quick to note he USED to believe that, and was educated away from that.
But yes, he does love conspiracy theories.
Which is part of the whole problem (as we've discussed in the conspiracy theory thread) - the alt-right uses that sort of thinking as a tool for indoctrination.
I'm of the opinion that most people can listen to opposing views on stuff without being "indocrinated" into anything.
This is one of the ways that the internet serves as a gateway to extremism.
Rogan seems to have a wildly varying array of guests so, again, I'm not super worried about it.
And, even if he is slightly to the right or left, or whatever, i dont find it difficult to be in the presence of people that i dont always agree with. And do so without changing my political underpinnings. Yet still be entertained by a good discussion.
Like, is this where we are now? As a progressive party? That we cant even allow a left leaning politician to go on a slightly less left leaning podcast (one of the biggest podcasts in the country too) because the right has everyone so damn scared that we create our own boogie men where there isnt any?
No, we're at the point I mentioned above: where we should be critical of what platforms we support by appearing on them. That we should be aware of the ways that giving a platform content and views funds all the things they do. Be aware of what you are funding and make a conscious choice about it.
But the specific point I was making was in response to your comment that hearing ideas doesn't change how people think by pointing out that it's not accurate. We know that exposing people to ideas frequently makes those ideas seem more plausible.
Warren needs to build a base to defeat Sanders and Biden. Sanders has already done multiple appearances on FOX and Biden is unlikely to attack the network very directly (not part of his "uniter" brand). She wants to pick up voters who are disillusioned by both of those positions while emphasizing a "Fighter" ethos. This is an easy way to do that.
This strategy doesn't make sense, ignores polling and assumes a massive amount of long-term lying by Warren on this issue. It's just silly.
Time and again, shows like Fox News air left wing candidates stating their actual views.
The show then immediately lies about those views.
Their viewership accepts these lies and derides those candidates. Nothing changes.
I am indeed quite content with not lending these shows any more legitimacy than they already hold. That time is easily better spent on a photo op in a battleground state or fundraising or just about anything else, really.
Joe Rogan doesn't really do that, though, as far as I'm aware.
He instead promotes made up conspiracy theories against candidates he doesn't like.
It's not really a meaningful difference for me.
He's known for not believing we landed on the moon. I don't even think it has anything to do with politics. He just seems to like conspiracies.
woof i dont want to turn into the resident "defend rogan" guy, but he is quick to note he USED to believe that, and was educated away from that.
But yes, he does love conspiracy theories.
Which is part of the whole problem (as we've discussed in the conspiracy theory thread) - the alt-right uses that sort of thinking as a tool for indoctrination.
I'm of the opinion that most people can listen to opposing views on stuff without being "indocrinated" into anything.
This is one of the ways that the internet serves as a gateway to extremism.
Rogan seems to have a wildly varying array of guests so, again, I'm not super worried about it.
And, even if he is slightly to the right or left, or whatever, i dont find it difficult to be in the presence of people that i dont always agree with. And do so without changing my political underpinnings. Yet still be entertained by a good discussion.
Like, is this where we are now? As a progressive party? That we cant even allow a left leaning politician to go on a slightly less left leaning podcast (one of the biggest podcasts in the country too) because the right has everyone so damn scared that we create our own boogie men where there isnt any?
No, we're at the point I mentioned above: where we should be critical of what platforms we support by appearing on them. That we should be aware of the ways that giving a platform content and views funds all the things they do. Be aware of what you are funding and make a conscious choice about it.
But the specific point I was making was in response to your comment that hearing ideas doesn't change how people think by pointing out that it's not accurate. We know that exposing people to ideas frequently makes those ideas seem more plausible.
Sure, got ya.
I think rogan has such a wide variety of guests that i wouldnt worry too much about "hearing the same thing" over and over. Politically speaking.
Now, if you dont agree with legalization of marijuana and discussions about experimental drug use, then -yes- Rogans podcast is definitely not for you. That is the most common thread i've noticed.
Should no candidates go on shock jock type radio shows? What kind of criteria are we talking here?
Sure, I don’t think any candidate from the Democratic side should go on a show where they openly promote conspiracy theories (even if it wasn’t on the episode they appeared on), or a show that’s disgustingly misogynistic like how Stern’s was.
I don’t think that sets the bar unacceptably high by any means. If anything it’s pretty low.
I completely disagree. Was Harris wrong to appear on the Breakfast Club? Was Warren wrong to do so as well?
If they frequently discuss how Hillary Clinton murdered Seth Rich or have women take their clothes off in the studio, then yes it would be wrong for them to appear on the show.
And this is, of course, completely ignoring that the Breakfast Club has wide appeal in the African American community, you know, a community that actually supports Democrats.
So as long as its for the team it's ok to truck with conspiracy theories?
What conspiracy theories do they push in the Breakfast Club?
Alternatively; is it somehow ok to push conspiracy theories that benefit Bernie?
re alternatively: why would you think that when I have explicitly stated my stance multiple times?
What conspiracy theories are promoted by the breakfast club?
I’ll also point out that you’re example featuring Warren was from her appearance in the show. So she did as able to respond in the moment.
My argument was that you were ok with it if it was for the team. We can ignore people's problems if they are on our team.
There is a far, far cry in difference between someone's opinions on a show and literal lies.
If any leftwing show starts peddling conspiracy and lies then yeah, I'd rather candidates avoided those as well.
Uh locking Trans people up if they don't reveal they are trans before you have sex with them is one of the many opinions Charlemagne had about women. It isn't a slight difference in opinion.
It's a pretty disgusting opinion! It is still not the same as espousing outright lies, as much as you seem to want to conflate the two.
You're saying there is less harm with that opinion? I'd say it's worse cause it's not even a conspiracy theory.
I would indeed contend there's less harm between someone holding a terrible opinion based on reality and one who holds a terrible opinion based on fantasy. One of these requires an extra step that allows for the person to ignore any and all contradicting opinions.
I can construct an argument against someone who's transphobic because they're transphobic. Not so much against someone who believes trans people are actually lizard people and that's why they're subhuman and anyone saying otherwise is just a part of the conspiracy.
Yes, I absolutely believe terrible opinions based on conspiracy theories are worse than those based on someone's own terrible reasoning.
Pretty much every time a Dem goes on a right wing news source, unless they're tearing in to the hosts themselves, I can't help but feel they'd be much better served going just about anywhere else.
Go shake hands in a battleground district or something.
So which sources are acceptable to go on? Because pretty much all of the platforms we have going to a wide audience are right-wing and racist.
There are plenty of options beyond Fox News and Rogan.
I also didn't say it was unacceptable. Just a waste of time. The people consuming Fox News are the same ones outright denying reality when confronted with it. There's no appealing to them.
This is almost as bad as accusing the North Korean people of being brain washed. There is always a way in. If you never try you wont find it though.
The last decade has demonstrated otherwise.
American conservatives are a group whose ideals repeatedly revolve around obtaining power at any cost for those with an R by their name and denying anything and everything that contradicts with what they claim to be true.
The day they decide to grow up and approach society like adults is the day when trying to appeal to them is worthwhile.
If you put the barrier of entry to the rest of society as immediately and completely renouncing all they once believed in you will never get anything other than a middle finger as a response.
There isn't a middle position on stuff like LGBT rights or 'racism is bad'.
Also the right wing media is like, active fucking grifters whose entire entire paycheck is based on middle fingers and not changing their minds. It's stuff like PragerU presenting itself as a faux educational channel while peddling lies and being funded by billionaire frackers or Stephen Crowder insisting 'Socialism is for F*gs' actually is calling socialist Figs. So even for stuff where there is some theoretical magical middle ground of only killing X people due to medical poverty or whatever is still a joke because they're lying about where the middle is from their point of view.
I'm not talking about agreeing to a middle ground on racism/sexism/etc. I agree there is none.
I'm talking about maybe they've reached a breaking point and are sick and tired about gun violence and want something to be done about it, so you explain all the things that could be done and how pretty much everyone that shows any initative to do something about it are Democrats. Then you might talk about other things you're fairly sure they would agree on, like more affordable health care or fixing gerrymandering (both of which have popularity across the aile) It's once you get them thinking about (or more than thinking) about actually voting D, you can start (politely) calling out on the racism and sexism and all the other awful stuff.
But you don't go "why do you care now? You're a racist hick that have no problems when a cop guns down an unarmed man as long as they're black or brown."
I remember former talk show jock Charlie Sykes saying that the best thing about getting fired for being an Anti-Trumper is that he now feels free to express an opinion that doesn't half to adhere to GoP dogma. You get them to stop thinking of themselves a "always Republican" you got at in that let's you tear down all the other awful ideas they've been fed until they've been made to believe them.
This would be a great point if the last decade had not being a slow slide right in many countries while weak ass liberal ‘we’re the middle between these assholes and good’ parties flounder.
I have no desire to describe all right wing folks as some silly skin head stereotype. Im just exceptionally sure they aren’t going to be mollified by polite and meek debate. Hands reached across the aisle just yank to the right.
Again, I'm not talking about the political level, I'm not naive enough to believe the current people in charge of the GoP have a desire to find a common ground that isn't "everything I want and nothing you want."
I'm okay with holding them in contempt and with the belief they will never change. I'm talking about outreach to the people who voted them in. Hoping they will change might be foolish, but treating them like they will never change is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Should no candidates go on shock jock type radio shows? What kind of criteria are we talking here?
Sure, I don’t think any candidate from the Democratic side should go on a show where they openly promote conspiracy theories (even if it wasn’t on the episode they appeared on), or a show that’s disgustingly misogynistic like how Stern’s was.
I don’t think that sets the bar unacceptably high by any means. If anything it’s pretty low.
I completely disagree. Was Harris wrong to appear on the Breakfast Club? Was Warren wrong to do so as well?
If they frequently discuss how Hillary Clinton murdered Seth Rich or have women take their clothes off in the studio, then yes it would be wrong for them to appear on the show.
And this is, of course, completely ignoring that the Breakfast Club has wide appeal in the African American community, you know, a community that actually supports Democrats.
So as long as its for the team it's ok to truck with conspiracy theories?
What conspiracy theories do they push in the Breakfast Club?
Alternatively; is it somehow ok to push conspiracy theories that benefit Bernie?
re alternatively: why would you think that when I have explicitly stated my stance multiple times?
What conspiracy theories are promoted by the breakfast club?
I’ll also point out that you’re example featuring Warren was from her appearance in the show. So she did as able to respond in the moment.
My argument was that you were ok with it if it was for the team. We can ignore people's problems if they are on our team.
There is a far, far cry in difference between someone's opinions on a show and literal lies.
If any leftwing show starts peddling conspiracy and lies then yeah, I'd rather candidates avoided those as well.
Uh locking Trans people up if they don't reveal they are trans before you have sex with them is one of the many opinions Charlemagne had about women. It isn't a slight difference in opinion.
It's a pretty disgusting opinion! It is still not the same as espousing outright lies, as much as you seem to want to conflate the two.
You're saying there is less harm with that opinion? I'd say it's worse cause it's not even a conspiracy theory.
I would indeed contend there's less harm between someone holding a terrible opinion based on reality and one who holds a terrible opinion based on fantasy. One of these requires an extra step that allows for the person to ignore any and all contradicting opinions.
I can construct an argument against someone who's transphobic because they're transphobic. Not so much against someone who believes trans people are actually lizard people and that's why they're subhuman and anyone saying otherwise is just a part of the conspiracy.
Yes, I absolutely believe terrible opinions based on conspiracy theories are worse than those based on someone's own terrible reasoning.
So in your view is The Breakfast Club fine to appear on? Should this thread now encompass deplatforming radio shows with transphobic hosts? Do we now bring in Harris, Warren and probably the rest of the Democratic field eventually into this conversation?
Pretty much every time a Dem goes on a right wing news source, unless they're tearing in to the hosts themselves, I can't help but feel they'd be much better served going just about anywhere else.
Go shake hands in a battleground district or something.
So which sources are acceptable to go on? Because pretty much all of the platforms we have going to a wide audience are right-wing and racist.
There are plenty of options beyond Fox News and Rogan.
I also didn't say it was unacceptable. Just a waste of time. The people consuming Fox News are the same ones outright denying reality when confronted with it. There's no appealing to them.
This is almost as bad as accusing the North Korean people of being brain washed. There is always a way in. If you never try you wont find it though.
The last decade has demonstrated otherwise.
American conservatives are a group whose ideals repeatedly revolve around obtaining power at any cost for those with an R by their name and denying anything and everything that contradicts with what they claim to be true.
The day they decide to grow up and approach society like adults is the day when trying to appeal to them is worthwhile.
If you put the barrier of entry to the rest of society as immediately and completely renouncing all they once believed in you will never get anything other than a middle finger as a response.
There isn't a middle position on stuff like LGBT rights or 'racism is bad'.
Also the right wing media is like, active fucking grifters whose entire entire paycheck is based on middle fingers and not changing their minds. It's stuff like PragerU presenting itself as a faux educational channel while peddling lies and being funded by billionaire frackers or Stephen Crowder insisting 'Socialism is for F*gs' actually is calling socialist Figs. So even for stuff where there is some theoretical magical middle ground of only killing X people due to medical poverty or whatever is still a joke because they're lying about where the middle is from their point of view.
I'm not talking about agreeing to a middle ground on racism/sexism/etc. I agree there is none.
I'm talking about maybe they've reached a breaking point and are sick and tired about gun violence and want something to be done about it, so you explain all the things that could be done and how pretty much everyone that shows any initative to do something about it are Democrats. Then you might talk about other things you're fairly sure they would agree on, like more affordable health care or fixing gerrymandering (both of which have popularity across the aile) It's once you get them thinking about (or more than thinking) about actually voting D, you can start (politely) calling out on the racism and sexism and all the other awful stuff.
But you don't go "why do you care now? You're a racist hick that have no problems when a cop guns down an unarmed man as long as they're black or brown."
I remember former talk show jock Charlie Sykes saying that the best thing about getting fired for being an Anti-Trumper is that he now feels free to express an opinion that doesn't half to adhere to GoP dogma. You get them to stop thinking of themselves a "always Republican" you got at in that let's you tear down all the other awful ideas they've been fed until they've been made to believe them.
This would be a great point if the last decade had not being a slow slide right in many countries while weak ass liberal ‘we’re the middle between these assholes and good’ parties flounder.
I have no desire to describe all right wing folks as some silly skin head stereotype. Im just exceptionally sure they aren’t going to be mollified by polite and meek debate. Hands reached across the aisle just yank to the right.
Again, I'm not talking about the political level, I'm not naive enough to believe the current people in charge of the GoP have a desire to find a common ground that isn't "everything I want and nothing you want."
I'm okay with holding them in contempt and with the belief they will never change. I'm talking about outreach to the people who voted them in. Hoping they will change might be foolish, but treating them like they will never change is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
We should definitely keep meekly meeting in the middle and treating them as reasonable.
That has worked so well so far. It’s a winning strategy as proven by *checks notes* the concentration camps???
Show of hands, how many people actually listen to Rogans podcast?
And, by listen, i dont mean go to youtube to find edited clips of ______ that support ______. I mean actually consistently listen to all or most of his podcasts weekly?
Because i do, and i have to say, any accusations of him being "a shill for the right" is kind of funny.
Granted, i wasnt thrilled he let Alex Jones run rampant for 4 hours (although it was 100% hilarious how off Jones is) but i truly got the impression Rogan knew he coudlnt do anything to point out the crazy better than Alex Jones was doing to himself.
Still, i dont mind the right wing people on there, same as i dont mind the left. Most people usually have something interesting to say, and its up to my developed brain to decide if i want to agree. Rogan is the first one to say he isnt around to play "gotcha" with guests of any political stripe, but instead wants to just talk to people and see what comes up. I respect that, and frankly, think we could all do with a bit more of it. Sometimes i wish he'd call out points better than he does, but thats ok because i still get turned on to a lot of guests ideas or perspectives i wouldnt have in a different setting. Cornell West was a great example of framing things i wouldnt have thought of otherwise, and turned out to be a far more entertaining guest that i anticipated.
Thank you for providing your perspective!
I legit cant tell if you're being honest or doing a condescending "bless your heart" thing that wont get nailed by mods.
Genuinly. I cant tell. lol
Sorry for the ambiguity, I am glad you have provided your perspective. I think many people denounce Rogan's podcast based off of second hand inferences or singular snippets of sound bites. So I am glad to have someone who listens regularly provide their perspective.
I apologize for the ambiguity and am sincerely thanking you for providing your perspective.
And, even if he is slightly to the right or left, or whatever, i dont find it difficult to be in the presence of people that i dont always agree with. And do so without changing my political underpinnings. Yet still be entertained by a good discussion.
Like, is this where we are now? As a progressive party? That we cant even allow a left leaning politician to go on a slightly less left leaning podcast (one of the biggest podcasts in the country too) because the right has everyone so damn scared that we create our own boogie men where there isnt any?
Oh hey, euphemistic language.
It is not because I "disagree" that I have no desire to listen to Jordan Peterson give a pseudointellectual argument for misogyny.
It is not because I "disagree" that I avoid Sam Harris' clueless bumbling through a 'defense' of Islamophobia.
It is because I don't have any time for hate and bigotry. I'm not going to pretend that their arguments somehow aren't hateful out of a misguided notion of balance.
Pretty much every time a Dem goes on a right wing news source, unless they're tearing in to the hosts themselves, I can't help but feel they'd be much better served going just about anywhere else.
Go shake hands in a battleground district or something.
So which sources are acceptable to go on? Because pretty much all of the platforms we have going to a wide audience are right-wing and racist.
There are plenty of options beyond Fox News and Rogan.
I also didn't say it was unacceptable. Just a waste of time. The people consuming Fox News are the same ones outright denying reality when confronted with it. There's no appealing to them.
This is almost as bad as accusing the North Korean people of being brain washed. There is always a way in. If you never try you wont find it though.
The last decade has demonstrated otherwise.
American conservatives are a group whose ideals repeatedly revolve around obtaining power at any cost for those with an R by their name and denying anything and everything that contradicts with what they claim to be true.
The day they decide to grow up and approach society like adults is the day when trying to appeal to them is worthwhile.
If you put the barrier of entry to the rest of society as immediately and completely renouncing all they once believed in you will never get anything other than a middle finger as a response.
There isn't a middle position on stuff like LGBT rights or 'racism is bad'.
Also the right wing media is like, active fucking grifters whose entire entire paycheck is based on middle fingers and not changing their minds. It's stuff like PragerU presenting itself as a faux educational channel while peddling lies and being funded by billionaire frackers or Stephen Crowder insisting 'Socialism is for F*gs' actually is calling socialist Figs. So even for stuff where there is some theoretical magical middle ground of only killing X people due to medical poverty or whatever is still a joke because they're lying about where the middle is from their point of view.
I'm not talking about agreeing to a middle ground on racism/sexism/etc. I agree there is none.
I'm talking about maybe they've reached a breaking point and are sick and tired about gun violence and want something to be done about it, so you explain all the things that could be done and how pretty much everyone that shows any initative to do something about it are Democrats. Then you might talk about other things you're fairly sure they would agree on, like more affordable health care or fixing gerrymandering (both of which have popularity across the aile) It's once you get them thinking about (or more than thinking) about actually voting D, you can start (politely) calling out on the racism and sexism and all the other awful stuff.
But you don't go "why do you care now? You're a racist hick that have no problems when a cop guns down an unarmed man as long as they're black or brown."
I remember former talk show jock Charlie Sykes saying that the best thing about getting fired for being an Anti-Trumper is that he now feels free to express an opinion that doesn't half to adhere to GoP dogma. You get them to stop thinking of themselves a "always Republican" you got at in that let's you tear down all the other awful ideas they've been fed until they've been made to believe them.
This would be a great point if the last decade had not being a slow slide right in many countries while weak ass liberal ‘we’re the middle between these assholes and good’ parties flounder.
I have no desire to describe all right wing folks as some silly skin head stereotype. Im just exceptionally sure they aren’t going to be mollified by polite and meek debate. Hands reached across the aisle just yank to the right.
Again, I'm not talking about the political level, I'm not naive enough to believe the current people in charge of the GoP have a desire to find a common ground that isn't "everything I want and nothing you want."
I'm okay with holding them in contempt and with the belief they will never change. I'm talking about outreach to the people who voted them in. Hoping they will change might be foolish, but treating them like they will never change is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
We should definitely keep meekly meeting in the middle and treating them as reasonable.
That has worked so well so far. It’s a winning strategy as proven by *checks notes* the concentration camps???
I think you misunderstand the goal of it. This isn't meeting in the middle. Bernie didn't change his platform to go on Joe Rogan's show.
I wrote my piece on the other thread, arguments like "legitimizing" and "normalizing" fall flat since everybody has been gushing about Spencer since 2016.
Like, Spencer was on CNN less than a month ago. So, any line that says that doing interviews on those news sites is ok, but Rogan is beyond the pale, requieres some serious goalpost moving since can prove that any standard is broken by the MSM anyways.
Pretty much every time a Dem goes on a right wing news source, unless they're tearing in to the hosts themselves, I can't help but feel they'd be much better served going just about anywhere else.
Go shake hands in a battleground district or something.
So which sources are acceptable to go on? Because pretty much all of the platforms we have going to a wide audience are right-wing and racist.
There are plenty of options beyond Fox News and Rogan.
I also didn't say it was unacceptable. Just a waste of time. The people consuming Fox News are the same ones outright denying reality when confronted with it. There's no appealing to them.
This is almost as bad as accusing the North Korean people of being brain washed. There is always a way in. If you never try you wont find it though.
The last decade has demonstrated otherwise.
American conservatives are a group whose ideals repeatedly revolve around obtaining power at any cost for those with an R by their name and denying anything and everything that contradicts with what they claim to be true.
The day they decide to grow up and approach society like adults is the day when trying to appeal to them is worthwhile.
If you put the barrier of entry to the rest of society as immediately and completely renouncing all they once believed in you will never get anything other than a middle finger as a response.
There isn't a middle position on stuff like LGBT rights or 'racism is bad'.
Also the right wing media is like, active fucking grifters whose entire entire paycheck is based on middle fingers and not changing their minds. It's stuff like PragerU presenting itself as a faux educational channel while peddling lies and being funded by billionaire frackers or Stephen Crowder insisting 'Socialism is for F*gs' actually is calling socialist Figs. So even for stuff where there is some theoretical magical middle ground of only killing X people due to medical poverty or whatever is still a joke because they're lying about where the middle is from their point of view.
I'm not talking about agreeing to a middle ground on racism/sexism/etc. I agree there is none.
I'm talking about maybe they've reached a breaking point and are sick and tired about gun violence and want something to be done about it, so you explain all the things that could be done and how pretty much everyone that shows any initative to do something about it are Democrats. Then you might talk about other things you're fairly sure they would agree on, like more affordable health care or fixing gerrymandering (both of which have popularity across the aile) It's once you get them thinking about (or more than thinking) about actually voting D, you can start (politely) calling out on the racism and sexism and all the other awful stuff.
But you don't go "why do you care now? You're a racist hick that have no problems when a cop guns down an unarmed man as long as they're black or brown."
I remember former talk show jock Charlie Sykes saying that the best thing about getting fired for being an Anti-Trumper is that he now feels free to express an opinion that doesn't half to adhere to GoP dogma. You get them to stop thinking of themselves a "always Republican" you got at in that let's you tear down all the other awful ideas they've been fed until they've been made to believe them.
This would be a great point if the last decade had not being a slow slide right in many countries while weak ass liberal ‘we’re the middle between these assholes and good’ parties flounder.
I have no desire to describe all right wing folks as some silly skin head stereotype. Im just exceptionally sure they aren’t going to be mollified by polite and meek debate. Hands reached across the aisle just yank to the right.
Again, I'm not talking about the political level, I'm not naive enough to believe the current people in charge of the GoP have a desire to find a common ground that isn't "everything I want and nothing you want."
I'm okay with holding them in contempt and with the belief they will never change. I'm talking about outreach to the people who voted them in. Hoping they will change might be foolish, but treating them like they will never change is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
We should definitely keep meekly meeting in the middle and treating them as reasonable.
That has worked so well so far. It’s a winning strategy as proven by *checks notes* the concentration camps???
I think you misunderstand the goal of it. This isn't meeting in the middle. Bernie didn't change his platform to go on Joe Rogan's show.
No, he promoted and funded Rogan in the hopes of reaching out to a broad, right wing audience.
Which given how well nicely reaching out for discussion and promotion has worked out so far is really just giving Rogan money and wasting Bernie's time.
Did anyone actually stop to definitively demonstrate that Joe Rogan is an alt right talk show host?
Bashing on Hillary in 2016 doesn't really count since that was incredibly popular for literally every media personality at the time.
Pretty much every time a Dem goes on a right wing news source, unless they're tearing in to the hosts themselves, I can't help but feel they'd be much better served going just about anywhere else.
Go shake hands in a battleground district or something.
So which sources are acceptable to go on? Because pretty much all of the platforms we have going to a wide audience are right-wing and racist.
There are plenty of options beyond Fox News and Rogan.
I also didn't say it was unacceptable. Just a waste of time. The people consuming Fox News are the same ones outright denying reality when confronted with it. There's no appealing to them.
This is almost as bad as accusing the North Korean people of being brain washed. There is always a way in. If you never try you wont find it though.
The last decade has demonstrated otherwise.
American conservatives are a group whose ideals repeatedly revolve around obtaining power at any cost for those with an R by their name and denying anything and everything that contradicts with what they claim to be true.
The day they decide to grow up and approach society like adults is the day when trying to appeal to them is worthwhile.
If you put the barrier of entry to the rest of society as immediately and completely renouncing all they once believed in you will never get anything other than a middle finger as a response.
There isn't a middle position on stuff like LGBT rights or 'racism is bad'.
Also the right wing media is like, active fucking grifters whose entire entire paycheck is based on middle fingers and not changing their minds. It's stuff like PragerU presenting itself as a faux educational channel while peddling lies and being funded by billionaire frackers or Stephen Crowder insisting 'Socialism is for F*gs' actually is calling socialist Figs. So even for stuff where there is some theoretical magical middle ground of only killing X people due to medical poverty or whatever is still a joke because they're lying about where the middle is from their point of view.
I'm not talking about agreeing to a middle ground on racism/sexism/etc. I agree there is none.
I'm talking about maybe they've reached a breaking point and are sick and tired about gun violence and want something to be done about it, so you explain all the things that could be done and how pretty much everyone that shows any initative to do something about it are Democrats. Then you might talk about other things you're fairly sure they would agree on, like more affordable health care or fixing gerrymandering (both of which have popularity across the aile) It's once you get them thinking about (or more than thinking) about actually voting D, you can start (politely) calling out on the racism and sexism and all the other awful stuff.
But you don't go "why do you care now? You're a racist hick that have no problems when a cop guns down an unarmed man as long as they're black or brown."
I remember former talk show jock Charlie Sykes saying that the best thing about getting fired for being an Anti-Trumper is that he now feels free to express an opinion that doesn't half to adhere to GoP dogma. You get them to stop thinking of themselves a "always Republican" you got at in that let's you tear down all the other awful ideas they've been fed until they've been made to believe them.
This would be a great point if the last decade had not being a slow slide right in many countries while weak ass liberal ‘we’re the middle between these assholes and good’ parties flounder.
I have no desire to describe all right wing folks as some silly skin head stereotype. Im just exceptionally sure they aren’t going to be mollified by polite and meek debate. Hands reached across the aisle just yank to the right.
Again, I'm not talking about the political level, I'm not naive enough to believe the current people in charge of the GoP have a desire to find a common ground that isn't "everything I want and nothing you want."
I'm okay with holding them in contempt and with the belief they will never change. I'm talking about outreach to the people who voted them in. Hoping they will change might be foolish, but treating them like they will never change is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
We should definitely keep meekly meeting in the middle and treating them as reasonable.
That has worked so well so far. It’s a winning strategy as proven by *checks notes* the concentration camps???
I think you misunderstand the goal of it. This isn't meeting in the middle. Bernie didn't change his platform to go on Joe Rogan's show.
No, he promoted and funded Rogan in the hopes of reaching out to a broad, right wing audience.
Which given how well nicely reaching out for discussion and promotion has worked out so far is really just giving Rogan money and wasting Bernie's time.
The only people on this board who think it's a waste of Bernie's time hate Bernie. I don't think it's a real complaint.
Did anyone actually stop to definitively demonstrate that Joe Rogan is an alt right talk show host?
Bashing on Hillary in 2016 doesn't really count since that was incredibly popular for literally every media personality at the time.
Alleging that someone murdered someone is not “bashing”, no matter how popular it was in 2016
Should no candidates go on shock jock type radio shows? What kind of criteria are we talking here?
Sure, I don’t think any candidate from the Democratic side should go on a show where they openly promote conspiracy theories (even if it wasn’t on the episode they appeared on), or a show that’s disgustingly misogynistic like how Stern’s was.
I don’t think that sets the bar unacceptably high by any means. If anything it’s pretty low.
I completely disagree. Was Harris wrong to appear on the Breakfast Club? Was Warren wrong to do so as well?
If they frequently discuss how Hillary Clinton murdered Seth Rich or have women take their clothes off in the studio, then yes it would be wrong for them to appear on the show.
And this is, of course, completely ignoring that the Breakfast Club has wide appeal in the African American community, you know, a community that actually supports Democrats.
So as long as its for the team it's ok to truck with conspiracy theories?
What conspiracy theories do they push in the Breakfast Club?
Alternatively; is it somehow ok to push conspiracy theories that benefit Bernie?
re alternatively: why would you think that when I have explicitly stated my stance multiple times?
What conspiracy theories are promoted by the breakfast club?
I’ll also point out that you’re example featuring Warren was from her appearance in the show. So she did as able to respond in the moment.
My argument was that you were ok with it if it was for the team. We can ignore people's problems if they are on our team.
There is a far, far cry in difference between someone's opinions on a show and literal lies.
If any leftwing show starts peddling conspiracy and lies then yeah, I'd rather candidates avoided those as well.
Uh locking Trans people up if they don't reveal they are trans before you have sex with them is one of the many opinions Charlemagne had about women. It isn't a slight difference in opinion.
It's a pretty disgusting opinion! It is still not the same as espousing outright lies, as much as you seem to want to conflate the two.
You're saying there is less harm with that opinion? I'd say it's worse cause it's not even a conspiracy theory.
I would indeed contend there's less harm between someone holding a terrible opinion based on reality and one who holds a terrible opinion based on fantasy. One of these requires an extra step that allows for the person to ignore any and all contradicting opinions.
I can construct an argument against someone who's transphobic because they're transphobic. Not so much against someone who believes trans people are actually lizard people and that's why they're subhuman and anyone saying otherwise is just a part of the conspiracy.
Yes, I absolutely believe terrible opinions based on conspiracy theories are worse than those based on someone's own terrible reasoning.
So in your view is The Breakfast Club fine to appear on? Should this thread now encompass deplatforming radio shows with transphobic hosts? Do we now bring in Harris, Warren and probably the rest of the Democratic field eventually into this conversation?
Possibly. I can't say I'm especially familiar with them. All I've said so far is that making up lies to push an agenda is a definite cut off point for me personally.
Did anyone actually stop to definitively demonstrate that Joe Rogan is an alt right talk show host?
Bashing on Hillary in 2016 doesn't really count since that was incredibly popular for literally every media personality at the time.
The evidence Rogan is alt right is that vice article that says because he has some of those figures on by extension he is enabling them. CNN is alt right now as well and everything has lost meaning.
Did anyone actually stop to definitively demonstrate that Joe Rogan is an alt right talk show host?
Bashing on Hillary in 2016 doesn't really count since that was incredibly popular for literally every media personality at the time.
I think it's important to point out that Rogan is notable as one of the big name entry points people take from mainstream and mainstream-ish news sources into the alt-right ecosystem.
The success of his Sanders episode above and beyond his normal success indicates that he's getting new views from Sanders more than Sanders is getting new views in front of Rogan's audience.
Putting aside the ethics of endorsing by appearance a show that, by whatever magic, tends to lead people down the alt-right rabit hole, I think there's a pragmatic concern that Sanders Democrats who start watching Rogan might end up moving closer to the Bernie Bro of myth.
Pretty much every time a Dem goes on a right wing news source, unless they're tearing in to the hosts themselves, I can't help but feel they'd be much better served going just about anywhere else.
Go shake hands in a battleground district or something.
So which sources are acceptable to go on? Because pretty much all of the platforms we have going to a wide audience are right-wing and racist.
There are plenty of options beyond Fox News and Rogan.
I also didn't say it was unacceptable. Just a waste of time. The people consuming Fox News are the same ones outright denying reality when confronted with it. There's no appealing to them.
This is almost as bad as accusing the North Korean people of being brain washed. There is always a way in. If you never try you wont find it though.
The last decade has demonstrated otherwise.
American conservatives are a group whose ideals repeatedly revolve around obtaining power at any cost for those with an R by their name and denying anything and everything that contradicts with what they claim to be true.
The day they decide to grow up and approach society like adults is the day when trying to appeal to them is worthwhile.
If you put the barrier of entry to the rest of society as immediately and completely renouncing all they once believed in you will never get anything other than a middle finger as a response.
There isn't a middle position on stuff like LGBT rights or 'racism is bad'.
Also the right wing media is like, active fucking grifters whose entire entire paycheck is based on middle fingers and not changing their minds. It's stuff like PragerU presenting itself as a faux educational channel while peddling lies and being funded by billionaire frackers or Stephen Crowder insisting 'Socialism is for F*gs' actually is calling socialist Figs. So even for stuff where there is some theoretical magical middle ground of only killing X people due to medical poverty or whatever is still a joke because they're lying about where the middle is from their point of view.
I'm not talking about agreeing to a middle ground on racism/sexism/etc. I agree there is none.
I'm talking about maybe they've reached a breaking point and are sick and tired about gun violence and want something to be done about it, so you explain all the things that could be done and how pretty much everyone that shows any initative to do something about it are Democrats. Then you might talk about other things you're fairly sure they would agree on, like more affordable health care or fixing gerrymandering (both of which have popularity across the aile) It's once you get them thinking about (or more than thinking) about actually voting D, you can start (politely) calling out on the racism and sexism and all the other awful stuff.
But you don't go "why do you care now? You're a racist hick that have no problems when a cop guns down an unarmed man as long as they're black or brown."
I remember former talk show jock Charlie Sykes saying that the best thing about getting fired for being an Anti-Trumper is that he now feels free to express an opinion that doesn't half to adhere to GoP dogma. You get them to stop thinking of themselves a "always Republican" you got at in that let's you tear down all the other awful ideas they've been fed until they've been made to believe them.
This would be a great point if the last decade had not being a slow slide right in many countries while weak ass liberal ‘we’re the middle between these assholes and good’ parties flounder.
I have no desire to describe all right wing folks as some silly skin head stereotype. Im just exceptionally sure they aren’t going to be mollified by polite and meek debate. Hands reached across the aisle just yank to the right.
Again, I'm not talking about the political level, I'm not naive enough to believe the current people in charge of the GoP have a desire to find a common ground that isn't "everything I want and nothing you want."
I'm okay with holding them in contempt and with the belief they will never change. I'm talking about outreach to the people who voted them in. Hoping they will change might be foolish, but treating them like they will never change is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
We should definitely keep meekly meeting in the middle and treating them as reasonable.
That has worked so well so far. It’s a winning strategy as proven by *checks notes* the concentration camps???
I think you misunderstand the goal of it. This isn't meeting in the middle. Bernie didn't change his platform to go on Joe Rogan's show.
No, he promoted and funded Rogan in the hopes of reaching out to a broad, right wing audience.
Which given how well nicely reaching out for discussion and promotion has worked out so far is really just giving Rogan money and wasting Bernie's time.
The only people on this board who think it's a waste of Bernie's time hate Bernie. I don't think it's a real complaint.
Bernie would literally be who I'd vote for if I were American.
Also to clarify: If Rogan is a right wing shithead then they shouldn't go on the show. As I said earlier I don't actually have any experience with Rogan.
Pretty much every time a Dem goes on a right wing news source, unless they're tearing in to the hosts themselves, I can't help but feel they'd be much better served going just about anywhere else.
Go shake hands in a battleground district or something.
So which sources are acceptable to go on? Because pretty much all of the platforms we have going to a wide audience are right-wing and racist.
There are plenty of options beyond Fox News and Rogan.
I also didn't say it was unacceptable. Just a waste of time. The people consuming Fox News are the same ones outright denying reality when confronted with it. There's no appealing to them.
This is almost as bad as accusing the North Korean people of being brain washed. There is always a way in. If you never try you wont find it though.
The last decade has demonstrated otherwise.
American conservatives are a group whose ideals repeatedly revolve around obtaining power at any cost for those with an R by their name and denying anything and everything that contradicts with what they claim to be true.
The day they decide to grow up and approach society like adults is the day when trying to appeal to them is worthwhile.
If you put the barrier of entry to the rest of society as immediately and completely renouncing all they once believed in you will never get anything other than a middle finger as a response.
There isn't a middle position on stuff like LGBT rights or 'racism is bad'.
Also the right wing media is like, active fucking grifters whose entire entire paycheck is based on middle fingers and not changing their minds. It's stuff like PragerU presenting itself as a faux educational channel while peddling lies and being funded by billionaire frackers or Stephen Crowder insisting 'Socialism is for F*gs' actually is calling socialist Figs. So even for stuff where there is some theoretical magical middle ground of only killing X people due to medical poverty or whatever is still a joke because they're lying about where the middle is from their point of view.
I'm not talking about agreeing to a middle ground on racism/sexism/etc. I agree there is none.
I'm talking about maybe they've reached a breaking point and are sick and tired about gun violence and want something to be done about it, so you explain all the things that could be done and how pretty much everyone that shows any initative to do something about it are Democrats. Then you might talk about other things you're fairly sure they would agree on, like more affordable health care or fixing gerrymandering (both of which have popularity across the aile) It's once you get them thinking about (or more than thinking) about actually voting D, you can start (politely) calling out on the racism and sexism and all the other awful stuff.
But you don't go "why do you care now? You're a racist hick that have no problems when a cop guns down an unarmed man as long as they're black or brown."
I remember former talk show jock Charlie Sykes saying that the best thing about getting fired for being an Anti-Trumper is that he now feels free to express an opinion that doesn't half to adhere to GoP dogma. You get them to stop thinking of themselves a "always Republican" you got at in that let's you tear down all the other awful ideas they've been fed until they've been made to believe them.
This would be a great point if the last decade had not being a slow slide right in many countries while weak ass liberal ‘we’re the middle between these assholes and good’ parties flounder.
I have no desire to describe all right wing folks as some silly skin head stereotype. Im just exceptionally sure they aren’t going to be mollified by polite and meek debate. Hands reached across the aisle just yank to the right.
Again, I'm not talking about the political level, I'm not naive enough to believe the current people in charge of the GoP have a desire to find a common ground that isn't "everything I want and nothing you want."
I'm okay with holding them in contempt and with the belief they will never change. I'm talking about outreach to the people who voted them in. Hoping they will change might be foolish, but treating them like they will never change is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
We should definitely keep meekly meeting in the middle and treating them as reasonable.
That has worked so well so far. It’s a winning strategy as proven by *checks notes* the concentration camps???
I think you misunderstand the goal of it. This isn't meeting in the middle. Bernie didn't change his platform to go on Joe Rogan's show.
No, he promoted and funded Rogan in the hopes of reaching out to a broad, right wing audience.
Which given how well nicely reaching out for discussion and promotion has worked out so far is really just giving Rogan money and wasting Bernie's time.
The only people on this board who think it's a waste of Bernie's time hate Bernie. I don't think it's a real complaint.
Oh, fuck this. I don’t “hate” Bernie and my disagreement with his appearance isn’t some opportunistic ploy to use this to simply attack Sanders.
Pretty much every time a Dem goes on a right wing news source, unless they're tearing in to the hosts themselves, I can't help but feel they'd be much better served going just about anywhere else.
Go shake hands in a battleground district or something.
So which sources are acceptable to go on? Because pretty much all of the platforms we have going to a wide audience are right-wing and racist.
There are plenty of options beyond Fox News and Rogan.
I also didn't say it was unacceptable. Just a waste of time. The people consuming Fox News are the same ones outright denying reality when confronted with it. There's no appealing to them.
This is almost as bad as accusing the North Korean people of being brain washed. There is always a way in. If you never try you wont find it though.
The last decade has demonstrated otherwise.
American conservatives are a group whose ideals repeatedly revolve around obtaining power at any cost for those with an R by their name and denying anything and everything that contradicts with what they claim to be true.
The day they decide to grow up and approach society like adults is the day when trying to appeal to them is worthwhile.
If you put the barrier of entry to the rest of society as immediately and completely renouncing all they once believed in you will never get anything other than a middle finger as a response.
There isn't a middle position on stuff like LGBT rights or 'racism is bad'.
Also the right wing media is like, active fucking grifters whose entire entire paycheck is based on middle fingers and not changing their minds. It's stuff like PragerU presenting itself as a faux educational channel while peddling lies and being funded by billionaire frackers or Stephen Crowder insisting 'Socialism is for F*gs' actually is calling socialist Figs. So even for stuff where there is some theoretical magical middle ground of only killing X people due to medical poverty or whatever is still a joke because they're lying about where the middle is from their point of view.
I'm not talking about agreeing to a middle ground on racism/sexism/etc. I agree there is none.
I'm talking about maybe they've reached a breaking point and are sick and tired about gun violence and want something to be done about it, so you explain all the things that could be done and how pretty much everyone that shows any initative to do something about it are Democrats. Then you might talk about other things you're fairly sure they would agree on, like more affordable health care or fixing gerrymandering (both of which have popularity across the aile) It's once you get them thinking about (or more than thinking) about actually voting D, you can start (politely) calling out on the racism and sexism and all the other awful stuff.
But you don't go "why do you care now? You're a racist hick that have no problems when a cop guns down an unarmed man as long as they're black or brown."
I remember former talk show jock Charlie Sykes saying that the best thing about getting fired for being an Anti-Trumper is that he now feels free to express an opinion that doesn't half to adhere to GoP dogma. You get them to stop thinking of themselves a "always Republican" you got at in that let's you tear down all the other awful ideas they've been fed until they've been made to believe them.
This would be a great point if the last decade had not being a slow slide right in many countries while weak ass liberal ‘we’re the middle between these assholes and good’ parties flounder.
I have no desire to describe all right wing folks as some silly skin head stereotype. Im just exceptionally sure they aren’t going to be mollified by polite and meek debate. Hands reached across the aisle just yank to the right.
Again, I'm not talking about the political level, I'm not naive enough to believe the current people in charge of the GoP have a desire to find a common ground that isn't "everything I want and nothing you want."
I'm okay with holding them in contempt and with the belief they will never change. I'm talking about outreach to the people who voted them in. Hoping they will change might be foolish, but treating them like they will never change is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
We should definitely keep meekly meeting in the middle and treating them as reasonable.
That has worked so well so far. It’s a winning strategy as proven by *checks notes* the concentration camps???
I think you misunderstand the goal of it. This isn't meeting in the middle. Bernie didn't change his platform to go on Joe Rogan's show.
No, he promoted and funded Rogan in the hopes of reaching out to a broad, right wing audience.
Which given how well nicely reaching out for discussion and promotion has worked out so far is really just giving Rogan money and wasting Bernie's time.
The only people on this board who think it's a waste of Bernie's time hate Bernie. I don't think it's a real complaint.
I assure you if any other Dem candidate went on his show I'd say they're wasting their time too.
Did anyone actually stop to definitively demonstrate that Joe Rogan is an alt right talk show host?
Bashing on Hillary in 2016 doesn't really count since that was incredibly popular for literally every media personality at the time.
The evidence Rogan is alt right is that vice article that says because he has some of those figures on by extension he is enabling them. CNN is alt right now as well and everything has lost meaning.
CNN (and pretty much everyone who gives Spencer and his ilk the time of day) are enablers yes.
Did anyone actually stop to definitively demonstrate that Joe Rogan is an alt right talk show host?
Bashing on Hillary in 2016 doesn't really count since that was incredibly popular for literally every media personality at the time.
Alleging that someone murdered someone is not “bashing”, no matter how popular it was in 2016
It was super popular to explore the wild and wonderful world of Clinton conspiracies. You can clutch your pearls all you want about it but one in four neighbors definitely thought the Clintons had done all the bad things in the world. It was the unfortunate side effect of being life long politicians for the family.
Pretty much every time a Dem goes on a right wing news source, unless they're tearing in to the hosts themselves, I can't help but feel they'd be much better served going just about anywhere else.
Go shake hands in a battleground district or something.
So which sources are acceptable to go on? Because pretty much all of the platforms we have going to a wide audience are right-wing and racist.
There are plenty of options beyond Fox News and Rogan.
I also didn't say it was unacceptable. Just a waste of time. The people consuming Fox News are the same ones outright denying reality when confronted with it. There's no appealing to them.
This is almost as bad as accusing the North Korean people of being brain washed. There is always a way in. If you never try you wont find it though.
The last decade has demonstrated otherwise.
American conservatives are a group whose ideals repeatedly revolve around obtaining power at any cost for those with an R by their name and denying anything and everything that contradicts with what they claim to be true.
The day they decide to grow up and approach society like adults is the day when trying to appeal to them is worthwhile.
If you put the barrier of entry to the rest of society as immediately and completely renouncing all they once believed in you will never get anything other than a middle finger as a response.
There isn't a middle position on stuff like LGBT rights or 'racism is bad'.
Also the right wing media is like, active fucking grifters whose entire entire paycheck is based on middle fingers and not changing their minds. It's stuff like PragerU presenting itself as a faux educational channel while peddling lies and being funded by billionaire frackers or Stephen Crowder insisting 'Socialism is for F*gs' actually is calling socialist Figs. So even for stuff where there is some theoretical magical middle ground of only killing X people due to medical poverty or whatever is still a joke because they're lying about where the middle is from their point of view.
I'm not talking about agreeing to a middle ground on racism/sexism/etc. I agree there is none.
I'm talking about maybe they've reached a breaking point and are sick and tired about gun violence and want something to be done about it, so you explain all the things that could be done and how pretty much everyone that shows any initative to do something about it are Democrats. Then you might talk about other things you're fairly sure they would agree on, like more affordable health care or fixing gerrymandering (both of which have popularity across the aile) It's once you get them thinking about (or more than thinking) about actually voting D, you can start (politely) calling out on the racism and sexism and all the other awful stuff.
But you don't go "why do you care now? You're a racist hick that have no problems when a cop guns down an unarmed man as long as they're black or brown."
I remember former talk show jock Charlie Sykes saying that the best thing about getting fired for being an Anti-Trumper is that he now feels free to express an opinion that doesn't half to adhere to GoP dogma. You get them to stop thinking of themselves a "always Republican" you got at in that let's you tear down all the other awful ideas they've been fed until they've been made to believe them.
This would be a great point if the last decade had not being a slow slide right in many countries while weak ass liberal ‘we’re the middle between these assholes and good’ parties flounder.
I have no desire to describe all right wing folks as some silly skin head stereotype. Im just exceptionally sure they aren’t going to be mollified by polite and meek debate. Hands reached across the aisle just yank to the right.
Again, I'm not talking about the political level, I'm not naive enough to believe the current people in charge of the GoP have a desire to find a common ground that isn't "everything I want and nothing you want."
I'm okay with holding them in contempt and with the belief they will never change. I'm talking about outreach to the people who voted them in. Hoping they will change might be foolish, but treating them like they will never change is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
We should definitely keep meekly meeting in the middle and treating them as reasonable.
That has worked so well so far. It’s a winning strategy as proven by *checks notes* the concentration camps???
I think you misunderstand the goal of it. This isn't meeting in the middle. Bernie didn't change his platform to go on Joe Rogan's show.
No, he promoted and funded Rogan in the hopes of reaching out to a broad, right wing audience.
Which given how well nicely reaching out for discussion and promotion has worked out so far is really just giving Rogan money and wasting Bernie's time.
The only people on this board who think it's a waste of Bernie's time hate Bernie. I don't think it's a real complaint.
I assure you if any other Dem candidate went on his show I'd say they're wasting their time too.
I think Gabbard has already been on there at least once.
Did anyone actually stop to definitively demonstrate that Joe Rogan is an alt right talk show host?
Bashing on Hillary in 2016 doesn't really count since that was incredibly popular for literally every media personality at the time.
I think it's important to point out that Rogan is notable as one of the big name entry points people take from mainstream and mainstream-ish news sources into the alt-right ecosystem.
The success of his Sanders episode above and beyond his normal success indicates that he's getting new views from Sanders more than Sanders is getting new views in front of Rogan's audience.
Putting aside the ethics of endorsing by appearance a show that, by whatever magic, tends to lead people down the alt-right rabit hole, I think there's a pragmatic concern that Sanders Democrats who start watching Rogan might end up moving closer to the Bernie Bro of myth.
Sorry I meant to say did anyone have something serious to contribute regarding the proof that Joe Rogan is an alt right talk show host.
He is a tiny outer dot on their little right-wing-media graph and if you had actually read the article instead of breathlessly posting whatever it is you feel is the most morally urgent every 10 seconds you would also realize that.
+2
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Did anyone actually stop to definitively demonstrate that Joe Rogan is an alt right talk show host?
Bashing on Hillary in 2016 doesn't really count since that was incredibly popular for literally every media personality at the time.
Alleging that someone murdered someone is not “bashing”, no matter how popular it was in 2016
It was super popular to explore the wild and wonderful world of Clinton conspiracies. You can clutch your pearls all you want about it but one in four neighbors definitely thought the Clintons had done all the bad things in the world. It was the unfortunate side effect of being life long politicians for the family.
Did anyone actually stop to definitively demonstrate that Joe Rogan is an alt right talk show host?
Bashing on Hillary in 2016 doesn't really count since that was incredibly popular for literally every media personality at the time.
Alleging that someone murdered someone is not “bashing”, no matter how popular it was in 2016
It was super popular to explore the wild and wonderful world of Clinton conspiracies. You can clutch your pearls all you want about it but one in four neighbors definitely thought the Clintons had done all the bad things in the world. It was the unfortunate side effect of being life long politicians for the family.
This is the most RealPolitik ass post of "no, ignore conspiracy peddling because it was popular and made money, which basically means it's guilt free!"
Which you know, is an opinion you can have about how the world must work.
Pretty much every time a Dem goes on a right wing news source, unless they're tearing in to the hosts themselves, I can't help but feel they'd be much better served going just about anywhere else.
Go shake hands in a battleground district or something.
So which sources are acceptable to go on? Because pretty much all of the platforms we have going to a wide audience are right-wing and racist.
There are plenty of options beyond Fox News and Rogan.
I also didn't say it was unacceptable. Just a waste of time. The people consuming Fox News are the same ones outright denying reality when confronted with it. There's no appealing to them.
This is almost as bad as accusing the North Korean people of being brain washed. There is always a way in. If you never try you wont find it though.
The last decade has demonstrated otherwise.
American conservatives are a group whose ideals repeatedly revolve around obtaining power at any cost for those with an R by their name and denying anything and everything that contradicts with what they claim to be true.
The day they decide to grow up and approach society like adults is the day when trying to appeal to them is worthwhile.
If you put the barrier of entry to the rest of society as immediately and completely renouncing all they once believed in you will never get anything other than a middle finger as a response.
There isn't a middle position on stuff like LGBT rights or 'racism is bad'.
Also the right wing media is like, active fucking grifters whose entire entire paycheck is based on middle fingers and not changing their minds. It's stuff like PragerU presenting itself as a faux educational channel while peddling lies and being funded by billionaire frackers or Stephen Crowder insisting 'Socialism is for F*gs' actually is calling socialist Figs. So even for stuff where there is some theoretical magical middle ground of only killing X people due to medical poverty or whatever is still a joke because they're lying about where the middle is from their point of view.
I'm not talking about agreeing to a middle ground on racism/sexism/etc. I agree there is none.
I'm talking about maybe they've reached a breaking point and are sick and tired about gun violence and want something to be done about it, so you explain all the things that could be done and how pretty much everyone that shows any initative to do something about it are Democrats. Then you might talk about other things you're fairly sure they would agree on, like more affordable health care or fixing gerrymandering (both of which have popularity across the aile) It's once you get them thinking about (or more than thinking) about actually voting D, you can start (politely) calling out on the racism and sexism and all the other awful stuff.
But you don't go "why do you care now? You're a racist hick that have no problems when a cop guns down an unarmed man as long as they're black or brown."
I remember former talk show jock Charlie Sykes saying that the best thing about getting fired for being an Anti-Trumper is that he now feels free to express an opinion that doesn't half to adhere to GoP dogma. You get them to stop thinking of themselves a "always Republican" you got at in that let's you tear down all the other awful ideas they've been fed until they've been made to believe them.
This would be a great point if the last decade had not being a slow slide right in many countries while weak ass liberal ‘we’re the middle between these assholes and good’ parties flounder.
I have no desire to describe all right wing folks as some silly skin head stereotype. Im just exceptionally sure they aren’t going to be mollified by polite and meek debate. Hands reached across the aisle just yank to the right.
Again, I'm not talking about the political level, I'm not naive enough to believe the current people in charge of the GoP have a desire to find a common ground that isn't "everything I want and nothing you want."
I'm okay with holding them in contempt and with the belief they will never change. I'm talking about outreach to the people who voted them in. Hoping they will change might be foolish, but treating them like they will never change is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
We should definitely keep meekly meeting in the middle and treating them as reasonable.
That has worked so well so far. It’s a winning strategy as proven by *checks notes* the concentration camps???
I think you misunderstand the goal of it. This isn't meeting in the middle. Bernie didn't change his platform to go on Joe Rogan's show.
No, he promoted and funded Rogan in the hopes of reaching out to a broad, right wing audience.
Which given how well nicely reaching out for discussion and promotion has worked out so far is really just giving Rogan money and wasting Bernie's time.
The only people on this board who think it's a waste of Bernie's time hate Bernie. I don't think it's a real complaint.
I assure you if any other Dem candidate went on his show I'd say they're wasting their time too.
I think Gabbard has already been on there at least once.
Tulsi Gabbard is a horrifying candidate, that she would be on a show strengthens my argument no candidate should be on it.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Joe Rogan is like bodybuilder forum writ large. It should be really easy to demonstrate if it is true that Joe Rogen is a paragon of the Alt-Right anti-MSM media!
Did anyone actually stop to definitively demonstrate that Joe Rogan is an alt right talk show host?
Bashing on Hillary in 2016 doesn't really count since that was incredibly popular for literally every media personality at the time.
I think it's important to point out that Rogan is notable as one of the big name entry points people take from mainstream and mainstream-ish news sources into the alt-right ecosystem.
The success of his Sanders episode above and beyond his normal success indicates that he's getting new views from Sanders more than Sanders is getting new views in front of Rogan's audience.
Putting aside the ethics of endorsing by appearance a show that, by whatever magic, tends to lead people down the alt-right rabit hole, I think there's a pragmatic concern that Sanders Democrats who start watching Rogan might end up moving closer to the Bernie Bro of myth.
Sorry I meant to say did anyone have something serious to contribute regarding the proof that Joe Rogan is an alt right talk show host.
He is a tiny outer dot on their little right-wing-media graph and if you had actually read the article instead of breathlessly posting whatever it is you feel is the most morally urgent every 10 seconds you would also realize that.
He's a dot in terms of number of connections within the network.
The article does note that, as a hugely popular host, he's a significant entry point because he's pushing around a lot of first-time volume over those few connections.
Did anyone actually stop to definitively demonstrate that Joe Rogan is an alt right talk show host?
Bashing on Hillary in 2016 doesn't really count since that was incredibly popular for literally every media personality at the time.
I think it's important to point out that Rogan is notable as one of the big name entry points people take from mainstream and mainstream-ish news sources into the alt-right ecosystem.
The success of his Sanders episode above and beyond his normal success indicates that he's getting new views from Sanders more than Sanders is getting new views in front of Rogan's audience.
Putting aside the ethics of endorsing by appearance a show that, by whatever magic, tends to lead people down the alt-right rabit hole, I think there's a pragmatic concern that Sanders Democrats who start watching Rogan might end up moving closer to the Bernie Bro of myth.
Sorry I meant to say did anyone have something serious to contribute regarding the proof that Joe Rogan is an alt right talk show host.
He is a tiny outer dot on their little right-wing-media graph and if you had actually read the article instead of breathlessly posting whatever it is you feel is the most morally urgent every 10 seconds you would also realize that.
It's literally a demonstration of the actual argument people are making: that he is a gateway to the alt-right media ecosystem. The it does not demonstrate whatever other point you had in mind is kind of obvious because that's a different argument from the one being made.
Did anyone actually stop to definitively demonstrate that Joe Rogan is an alt right talk show host?
Bashing on Hillary in 2016 doesn't really count since that was incredibly popular for literally every media personality at the time.
I think it's important to point out that Rogan is notable as one of the big name entry points people take from mainstream and mainstream-ish news sources into the alt-right ecosystem.
The success of his Sanders episode above and beyond his normal success indicates that he's getting new views from Sanders more than Sanders is getting new views in front of Rogan's audience.
Putting aside the ethics of endorsing by appearance a show that, by whatever magic, tends to lead people down the alt-right rabit hole, I think there's a pragmatic concern that Sanders Democrats who start watching Rogan might end up moving closer to the Bernie Bro of myth.
Sorry I meant to say did anyone have something serious to contribute regarding the proof that Joe Rogan is an alt right talk show host.
He is a tiny outer dot on their little right-wing-media graph and if you had actually read the article instead of breathlessly posting whatever it is you feel is the most morally urgent every 10 seconds you would also realize that.
He's a dot in terms of number of connections within the network.
The article does note that, as a hugely popular host, he's a significant entry point because he's pushing around a lot of first-time volume over those few connections.
Sorry but if we are going to use this article as definitive proof (tm) that Joe Rogan is alt-right, then we need to look at the square in the figure. His square is orange and smallest. Suggesting that of all the different media personalities in this alt-right network cloud, Joe Rogan is very much not a significant entry point.
Pretty much every time a Dem goes on a right wing news source, unless they're tearing in to the hosts themselves, I can't help but feel they'd be much better served going just about anywhere else.
Go shake hands in a battleground district or something.
So which sources are acceptable to go on? Because pretty much all of the platforms we have going to a wide audience are right-wing and racist.
There are plenty of options beyond Fox News and Rogan.
I also didn't say it was unacceptable. Just a waste of time. The people consuming Fox News are the same ones outright denying reality when confronted with it. There's no appealing to them.
This is almost as bad as accusing the North Korean people of being brain washed. There is always a way in. If you never try you wont find it though.
The last decade has demonstrated otherwise.
American conservatives are a group whose ideals repeatedly revolve around obtaining power at any cost for those with an R by their name and denying anything and everything that contradicts with what they claim to be true.
The day they decide to grow up and approach society like adults is the day when trying to appeal to them is worthwhile.
If you put the barrier of entry to the rest of society as immediately and completely renouncing all they once believed in you will never get anything other than a middle finger as a response.
There isn't a middle position on stuff like LGBT rights or 'racism is bad'.
Also the right wing media is like, active fucking grifters whose entire entire paycheck is based on middle fingers and not changing their minds. It's stuff like PragerU presenting itself as a faux educational channel while peddling lies and being funded by billionaire frackers or Stephen Crowder insisting 'Socialism is for F*gs' actually is calling socialist Figs. So even for stuff where there is some theoretical magical middle ground of only killing X people due to medical poverty or whatever is still a joke because they're lying about where the middle is from their point of view.
I'm not talking about agreeing to a middle ground on racism/sexism/etc. I agree there is none.
I'm talking about maybe they've reached a breaking point and are sick and tired about gun violence and want something to be done about it, so you explain all the things that could be done and how pretty much everyone that shows any initative to do something about it are Democrats. Then you might talk about other things you're fairly sure they would agree on, like more affordable health care or fixing gerrymandering (both of which have popularity across the aile) It's once you get them thinking about (or more than thinking) about actually voting D, you can start (politely) calling out on the racism and sexism and all the other awful stuff.
But you don't go "why do you care now? You're a racist hick that have no problems when a cop guns down an unarmed man as long as they're black or brown."
I remember former talk show jock Charlie Sykes saying that the best thing about getting fired for being an Anti-Trumper is that he now feels free to express an opinion that doesn't half to adhere to GoP dogma. You get them to stop thinking of themselves a "always Republican" you got at in that let's you tear down all the other awful ideas they've been fed until they've been made to believe them.
This would be a great point if the last decade had not being a slow slide right in many countries while weak ass liberal ‘we’re the middle between these assholes and good’ parties flounder.
I have no desire to describe all right wing folks as some silly skin head stereotype. Im just exceptionally sure they aren’t going to be mollified by polite and meek debate. Hands reached across the aisle just yank to the right.
Again, I'm not talking about the political level, I'm not naive enough to believe the current people in charge of the GoP have a desire to find a common ground that isn't "everything I want and nothing you want."
I'm okay with holding them in contempt and with the belief they will never change. I'm talking about outreach to the people who voted them in. Hoping they will change might be foolish, but treating them like they will never change is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
We should definitely keep meekly meeting in the middle and treating them as reasonable.
That has worked so well so far. It’s a winning strategy as proven by *checks notes* the concentration camps???
For the love of...
IM NOT TALK ABOUT MCCONNELL, OR TRUMP OR ANYONE SITTING IN CONGRESS WITH AN R NEXT TO THEIR NAME, OR ANY OF THE STOOGES THEY'VE APPOINTED IN GOVERNMENT!! FUCK ALL OF THEM!! AND DONT GIVE THEM A FUCKING INCH!
I'm talking about when you walk by your conservative aquaintice when they complain that they're tired about gun violence, and instead of blowing them off for being racist shitheels, you talk to them about what can be done and how the GoP isn't doing anything about it.
You don't accept their racism, you don't look the other way when they call someone a homophobic term, but you don't end all conversation because they did it and treated them they are a lost cause forever tainted either. You might make dropping all that a condition for being on the Right Side, but it's shouldn't be a condition to apply in the first place.
I'm not talking about tolerating the intolerable, I'm talking about patience and forgiveness for those willing to question the lies they've been fed even they aren't yet read to denounce all of them. And yes, there should be a limit to that patience.
Posts
Cynicism.
Warren needs to build a base to defeat Sanders and Biden. Sanders has already done multiple appearances on FOX and Biden is unlikely to attack the network very directly (not part of his "uniter" brand). She wants to pick up voters who are disillusioned by both of those positions while emphasizing a "Fighter" ethos. This is an easy way to do that.
Our first game is now available for free on Google Play: Frontier: Isle of the Seven Gods
It's a pretty disgusting opinion! It is still not the same as espousing outright lies, as much as you seem to want to conflate the two.
I legit cant tell if you're being honest or doing a condescending "bless your heart" thing that wont get nailed by mods.
Genuinly. I cant tell. lol
You're saying there is less harm with that opinion? I'd say it's worse cause it's not even a conspiracy theory.
Honestly I couldn’t say. My knowledge of Joe Rogan is basically zilch.
I was just addressing the idea that there’s value in reaching out to right wing voters on platforms biased to the right.
No, we're at the point I mentioned above: where we should be critical of what platforms we support by appearing on them. That we should be aware of the ways that giving a platform content and views funds all the things they do. Be aware of what you are funding and make a conscious choice about it.
But the specific point I was making was in response to your comment that hearing ideas doesn't change how people think by pointing out that it's not accurate. We know that exposing people to ideas frequently makes those ideas seem more plausible.
This strategy doesn't make sense, ignores polling and assumes a massive amount of long-term lying by Warren on this issue. It's just silly.
Sure, got ya.
I think rogan has such a wide variety of guests that i wouldnt worry too much about "hearing the same thing" over and over. Politically speaking.
Now, if you dont agree with legalization of marijuana and discussions about experimental drug use, then -yes- Rogans podcast is definitely not for you. That is the most common thread i've noticed.
I would indeed contend there's less harm between someone holding a terrible opinion based on reality and one who holds a terrible opinion based on fantasy. One of these requires an extra step that allows for the person to ignore any and all contradicting opinions.
I can construct an argument against someone who's transphobic because they're transphobic. Not so much against someone who believes trans people are actually lizard people and that's why they're subhuman and anyone saying otherwise is just a part of the conspiracy.
Yes, I absolutely believe terrible opinions based on conspiracy theories are worse than those based on someone's own terrible reasoning.
Which gets you to the 'intellectual dark web' bullshit.
Which brings us back to the alt-right, even Rogan didn't directly push you there--just anti-establishment and conspiracy-minded.
Again, I'm not talking about the political level, I'm not naive enough to believe the current people in charge of the GoP have a desire to find a common ground that isn't "everything I want and nothing you want."
I'm okay with holding them in contempt and with the belief they will never change. I'm talking about outreach to the people who voted them in. Hoping they will change might be foolish, but treating them like they will never change is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
So in your view is The Breakfast Club fine to appear on? Should this thread now encompass deplatforming radio shows with transphobic hosts? Do we now bring in Harris, Warren and probably the rest of the Democratic field eventually into this conversation?
We should definitely keep meekly meeting in the middle and treating them as reasonable.
That has worked so well so far. It’s a winning strategy as proven by *checks notes* the concentration camps???
Sorry for the ambiguity, I am glad you have provided your perspective. I think many people denounce Rogan's podcast based off of second hand inferences or singular snippets of sound bites. So I am glad to have someone who listens regularly provide their perspective.
I apologize for the ambiguity and am sincerely thanking you for providing your perspective.
Oh hey, euphemistic language.
It is not because I "disagree" that I have no desire to listen to Jordan Peterson give a pseudointellectual argument for misogyny.
It is not because I "disagree" that I avoid Sam Harris' clueless bumbling through a 'defense' of Islamophobia.
It is because I don't have any time for hate and bigotry. I'm not going to pretend that their arguments somehow aren't hateful out of a misguided notion of balance.
I think you misunderstand the goal of it. This isn't meeting in the middle. Bernie didn't change his platform to go on Joe Rogan's show.
Like, Spencer was on CNN less than a month ago. So, any line that says that doing interviews on those news sites is ok, but Rogan is beyond the pale, requieres some serious goalpost moving since can prove that any standard is broken by the MSM anyways.
No, he promoted and funded Rogan in the hopes of reaching out to a broad, right wing audience.
Which given how well nicely reaching out for discussion and promotion has worked out so far is really just giving Rogan money and wasting Bernie's time.
Bashing on Hillary in 2016 doesn't really count since that was incredibly popular for literally every media personality at the time.
The only people on this board who think it's a waste of Bernie's time hate Bernie. I don't think it's a real complaint.
Possibly. I can't say I'm especially familiar with them. All I've said so far is that making up lies to push an agenda is a definite cut off point for me personally.
The evidence Rogan is alt right is that vice article that says because he has some of those figures on by extension he is enabling them. CNN is alt right now as well and everything has lost meaning.
Yes, in the third post on this thread:
Bernie would literally be who I'd vote for if I were American.
Also to clarify: If Rogan is a right wing shithead then they shouldn't go on the show. As I said earlier I don't actually have any experience with Rogan.
He's certainly a guy with some opinions about things, but I never got the impression that he was intentionally spreading an ideology.
Oh, fuck this. I don’t “hate” Bernie and my disagreement with his appearance isn’t some opportunistic ploy to use this to simply attack Sanders.
I assure you if any other Dem candidate went on his show I'd say they're wasting their time too.
CNN (and pretty much everyone who gives Spencer and his ilk the time of day) are enablers yes.
I think Gabbard has already been on there at least once.
Our first game is now available for free on Google Play: Frontier: Isle of the Seven Gods
He is a tiny outer dot on their little right-wing-media graph and if you had actually read the article instead of breathlessly posting whatever it is you feel is the most morally urgent every 10 seconds you would also realize that.
That doesn't excuse pushing it!
This is the most RealPolitik ass post of "no, ignore conspiracy peddling because it was popular and made money, which basically means it's guilt free!"
Which you know, is an opinion you can have about how the world must work.
Tulsi Gabbard is a horrifying candidate, that she would be on a show strengthens my argument no candidate should be on it.
pleasepaypreacher.net
He's a dot in terms of number of connections within the network.
The article does note that, as a hugely popular host, he's a significant entry point because he's pushing around a lot of first-time volume over those few connections.
It's literally a demonstration of the actual argument people are making: that he is a gateway to the alt-right media ecosystem. The it does not demonstrate whatever other point you had in mind is kind of obvious because that's a different argument from the one being made.
For the love of...
IM NOT TALK ABOUT MCCONNELL, OR TRUMP OR ANYONE SITTING IN CONGRESS WITH AN R NEXT TO THEIR NAME, OR ANY OF THE STOOGES THEY'VE APPOINTED IN GOVERNMENT!! FUCK ALL OF THEM!! AND DONT GIVE THEM A FUCKING INCH!
I'm talking about when you walk by your conservative aquaintice when they complain that they're tired about gun violence, and instead of blowing them off for being racist shitheels, you talk to them about what can be done and how the GoP isn't doing anything about it.
You don't accept their racism, you don't look the other way when they call someone a homophobic term, but you don't end all conversation because they did it and treated them they are a lost cause forever tainted either. You might make dropping all that a condition for being on the Right Side, but it's shouldn't be a condition to apply in the first place.
I'm not talking about tolerating the intolerable, I'm talking about patience and forgiveness for those willing to question the lies they've been fed even they aren't yet read to denounce all of them. And yes, there should be a limit to that patience.