* eye roll. *
Hey guys, news flash, just because you dont agree with someone, even if their views can be taken as egregious it doesnt make them nazis.
Some people have shit ideas. Some people have shit ideas mixed with good idea. Some people have good ideas. Turns out people are people.
You dont "shock" anyone into action by calling people nazis. All you do is dilute the term. Considering that term is representative of some of the worst evil the world ever faced, we probably want to save that use until there are...you know...actual nazis.
Nazis like Gavin McInness, founder of the Proud Boys? Rogan's had him as a guest. Several times.
* eye roll. *
Hey guys, news flash, just because you dont agree with someone, even if their views can be taken as egregious it doesnt make them nazis.
Some people have shit ideas. Some people have shit ideas mixed with good idea. Some people have good ideas. Turns out people are people.
You dont "shock" anyone into action by calling people nazis. All you do is dilute the term. Considering that term is representative of some of the worst evil the world ever faced, we probably want to save that use until there are...you know...actual nazis.
Nazis like Gavin McInness, founder of the Proud Boys? Rogan's had him as a guest. Several times.
Are you hoping someone will defend McInness or something?
* eye roll. *
Hey guys, news flash, just because you dont agree with someone, even if their views can be taken as egregious it doesnt make them nazis.
Some people have shit ideas. Some people have shit ideas mixed with good idea. Some people have good ideas. Turns out people are people.
You dont "shock" anyone into action by calling people nazis. All you do is dilute the term. Considering that term is representative of some of the worst evil the world ever faced, we probably want to save that use until there are...you know...actual nazis.
Nazis like Gavin McInness, founder of the Proud Boys? Rogan's had him as a guest. Several times.
And also denounced his points, rascism, nazism, proud boys, and other things numerous times on his podcast as well. Or do you think that didnt come up in his 3 hour convo with Cornell West?
* eye roll. *
Hey guys, news flash, just because you dont agree with someone, even if their views can be taken as egregious it doesnt make them nazis.
Some people have shit ideas. Some people have shit ideas mixed with good idea. Some people have good ideas. Turns out people are people.
You dont "shock" anyone into action by calling people nazis. All you do is dilute the term. Considering that term is representative of some of the worst evil the world ever faced, we probably want to save that use until there are...you know...actual nazis.
Nazis like Gavin McInness, founder of the Proud Boys? Rogan's had him as a guest. Several times.
And also denounced his points, rascism, nazism, proud boys, and other things numerous times on his podcast as well. Or do you think that didnt come up in his 3 hour convo with Cornell West?
Did he do it to their face when they made outlandish claims or does he nod along with them while they are there and then challenge them in a totally different show with different guests?
Nor is every shitty right wing grifter a nazi. This is barely even nuance.
I'm pretty sure the founder of the Proud Boys counts as a Nazi, though.
And as for the other people we've discussed, we have Jordan Peterson, a transphobic misogynist who came to prominence by arguing that deadnaming was a matter of academic freedom ; Sam Harris, an Islamophobic neuroscientist who routinely and cluelessly opines on religion; and Ben Shapiro, who, well...Cody from Some More News puts it better than I can:
At a certain point, trying to argue that the problem is that someone just "disagrees" without discussing the disagreement is in the first place is just a form of dodging.
* eye roll. *
Hey guys, news flash, just because you dont agree with someone, even if their views can be taken as egregious it doesnt make them nazis.
Some people have shit ideas. Some people have shit ideas mixed with good idea. Some people have good ideas. Turns out people are people.
You dont "shock" anyone into action by calling people nazis. All you do is dilute the term. Considering that term is representative of some of the worst evil the world ever faced, we probably want to save that use until there are...you know...actual nazis.
Nazis like Gavin McInness, founder of the Proud Boys? Rogan's had him as a guest. Several times.
And also denounced his points, rascism, nazism, proud boys, and other things numerous times on his podcast as well. Or do you think that didnt come up in his 3 hour convo with Cornell West?
Did he do it to their face when they made outlandish claims or does he nod along with them while they are there and then challenge them in a totally different show with different guests?
Honestly dont know as it looks like the last time he was on was before i started watching/listening to the podcasts. Though i have gone back to listen to other older ones, i never felt the need to listen to this one.
However, knowing the "format" its entirely possible that nothing or substance was discussed OR that Gavin downplayed certain things to Rogan's face. Which, I've seen that happen too.
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
Why can't Rogan also be an entry point for people to go left?
Because he has no interest in doing so. Bernie's an outlier here.
I googled a bit because I was curious. There have been people in the Rogan subreddit asking about the prominent leftists that Rogan has had on, and it got some interesting responses. Many people said that he primarily has left leaning folks on but that a lot of them are comedians and such. Someone posted a list of people but I didn't recognize many names. Here's that list:
I (OP) would say Noam Chomsky. A more youthful example may be Keeanga Yamahtta Taylor.
Other notable people: Kimberlé Crenshaw, Eddie Glaude, Michelle Alexander, Cornel West, Angela Davis, Kiese Laymon, Peniel Joseph, James Forman, Paul Butler, Tommie Shelby, Robin D. G. Kelley, Cathy Cohen, Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, Khalil Gibran Muhammad, Nina Turner, Bryan Stevenson, Nell Irvin Painter, Elizabeth Hinton, Briahna Joy Gray
I think people who listen to Rogan would probably disagree that Rogan is only an entry point for the alt right. If we assume that all those names I'm definitely not going to sit here and google are actually leftists, that seems like quite a bit of people compared to the few conservative names that get brought up, though the conservative/alt right names are ones I've heard of more often.
I don't necessarily think Joe Rogan has an interest in drawing people to a particular political spectrum, but rather just likes to talk to prominent people and hear their ideas, regardless of what those ideas might be. Whether or not this is a good thing is certainly up for debate of course.
Damn he had on Crenshaw? That's dope.
But that's a legit list. I recognize a bunch of them from feminist/critical race theory papers I've read. And a bunch from leftist activist circles.
I think it's clear that Bernie is no outlier and Rogan has provided plenty of space for leftist voices.
* eye roll. *
Hey guys, news flash, just because you dont agree with someone, even if their views can be taken as egregious it doesnt make them nazis.
Some people have shit ideas. Some people have shit ideas mixed with good idea. Some people have good ideas. Turns out people are people.
You dont "shock" anyone into action by calling people nazis. All you do is dilute the term. Considering that term is representative of some of the worst evil the world ever faced, we probably want to save that use until there are...you know...actual nazis.
Nazis like Gavin McInness, founder of the Proud Boys? Rogan's had him as a guest. Several times.
And also denounced his points, rascism, nazism, proud boys, and other things numerous times on his podcast as well. Or do you think that didnt come up in his 3 hour convo with Cornell West?
Did he do it to their face when they made outlandish claims or does he nod along with them while they are there and then challenge them in a totally different show with different guests?
Honestly dont know as it looks like the last time he was on was before i started watching/listening to the podcasts. Though i have gone back to listen to other older ones, i never felt the need to listen to this one.
However, knowing the "format" its entirely possible that nothing or substance was discussed OR that Gavin downplayed certain things to Rogan's face. Which, I've seen that happen too.
There's an easy solution to that problem - don't invite Nazis on your show.
Nor is every shitty right wing grifter a nazi. This is barely even nuance.
I'm pretty sure the founder of the Proud Boys counts as a Nazi, though.
And as for the other people we've discussed, we have Jordan Peterson, a transphobic misogynist who came to prominence by arguing that deadnaming was a matter of academic freedom ; Sam Harris, an Islamophobic neuroscientist who routinely and cluelessly opines on religion; and Ben Shapiro, who, well...Cody from Some More News puts it better than I can:
At a certain point, trying to argue that the problem is that someone just "disagrees" without discussing the disagreement is in the first place is just a form of dodging.
Its not though because those are pretty disingenuous reads of those people. Which, no offense, you do a lot. You assume the worst and state it as fact and call people ___-ists because they dont agree with your world view. Ive ;listened to a NUMBER of Sam Harris podcasts as well, and he draws a much finer point than you accuse him of, and i suspect Peterson does as well.
Since you insist on calling Rogan alt-right adjacent and i KNOW that to not be true, i cant really take your opinion of Harris or Peterson at value either.
Harris is a massive bigoted asshole and so is Peterson but calling them Nazis just waters down the word to shitty right winger and miss me with that.
Really though, this endless "but lookat all these bad people he talked to!" thing is really kind of droll. Yeah, lots of bad people on the show, lots of good ones too. Not that many liberals, though I can see why. Its a big platform and smart people will take it when offered if they care more about spreading their message than their self serving righteousness.
Why can't Rogan also be an entry point for people to go left?
Because he has no interest in doing so. Bernie's an outlier here.
I googled a bit because I was curious. There have been people in the Rogan subreddit asking about the prominent leftists that Rogan has had on, and it got some interesting responses. Many people said that he primarily has left leaning folks on but that a lot of them are comedians and such. Someone posted a list of people but I didn't recognize many names. Here's that list:
I (OP) would say Noam Chomsky. A more youthful example may be Keeanga Yamahtta Taylor.
Other notable people: Kimberlé Crenshaw, Eddie Glaude, Michelle Alexander, Cornel West, Angela Davis, Kiese Laymon, Peniel Joseph, James Forman, Paul Butler, Tommie Shelby, Robin D. G. Kelley, Cathy Cohen, Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, Khalil Gibran Muhammad, Nina Turner, Bryan Stevenson, Nell Irvin Painter, Elizabeth Hinton, Briahna Joy Gray
I think people who listen to Rogan would probably disagree that Rogan is only an entry point for the alt right. If we assume that all those names I'm definitely not going to sit here and google are actually leftists, that seems like quite a bit of people compared to the few conservative names that get brought up, though the conservative/alt right names are ones I've heard of more often.
I don't necessarily think Joe Rogan has an interest in drawing people to a particular political spectrum, but rather just likes to talk to prominent people and hear their ideas, regardless of what those ideas might be. Whether or not this is a good thing is certainly up for debate of course.
Damn he had on Crenshaw? That's dope.
But that's a legit list. I recognize a bunch of them from feminist/critical race theory papers I've read. And a bunch from leftist activist circles.
I think it's clear that Bernie is no outlier and Rogan has provided plenty of space for leftist voices.
Well he hasn't had a bunch of my favourite leftists on so I still hate him.
Peterson responded to a mass murder by arguing in the attackers favor and saying
“He was angry at God because women were rejecting him,” Peterson said of the alleged Toronto killer. “The cure for that is enforced monogamy. That’s actually why monogamy emerges.”
He does insist he's not alt right. That said he also uses the same buzzwords they do, just dressed up nicer, and talks about things like trans people having rights is "Marxism" that's going to cause gulags.
Harris is a massive bigoted asshole and so is Peterson but calling them Nazis just waters down the word to shitty right winger and miss me with that.
Really though, this endless "but lookat all these bad people he talked to!" thing is really kind of droll. Yeah, lots of bad people on the show, lots of good ones too. Not that many liberals, though I can see why. Its a big platform and smart people will take it when offered if they care more about spreading their message than their self serving righteousness.
I didn't call them Nazis - I called McInness that, because he is one. But I always find the downplaying of bigots as just "bad people" to be part of the reason we struggle with combating hate. It's like people are afraid to actually acknowledge what they are and the harm they do.
Edit: And this is why I said that you downplay bigotry - because you use words that downplay it.
Harris is a massive bigoted asshole and so is Peterson but calling them Nazis just waters down the word to shitty right winger and miss me with that.
Really though, this endless "but lookat all these bad people he talked to!" thing is really kind of droll. Yeah, lots of bad people on the show, lots of good ones too. Not that many liberals, though I can see why. Its a big platform and smart people will take it when offered if they care more about spreading their message than their self serving righteousness.
I didn't call them Nazis - I called McInness that, because he is one. But I always find the downplaying of bigots as just "bad people" to be part of the reason we struggle with combating hate. It's like people are afraid to actually acknowledge what they are and the harm they do.
Harris is a massive bigoted asshole and so is Peterson but calling them Nazis just waters down the word to shitty right winger and miss me with that.
Really though, this endless "but lookat all these bad people he talked to!" thing is really kind of droll. Yeah, lots of bad people on the show, lots of good ones too. Not that many liberals, though I can see why. Its a big platform and smart people will take it when offered if they care more about spreading their message than their self serving righteousness.
I didn't call them Nazis - I called McInness that, because he is one. But I always find the downplaying of bigots as just "bad people" to be part of the reason we struggle with combating hate. It's like people are afraid to actually acknowledge what they are and the harm they do.
This is indistinguishable from tone policing
Now you're grasping at straws. There is a material difference between calling someone a "bad person", which is a rather nebulous and subjective phrase; and calling someone a bigot, which is decidedly less so.
This whole "liberals should only go speak on platforms that strictly adhere to liberals values" seems sharply at odds with any desire to actually grow the faction.
It's interesting how you keep ducking the elephant in the room. People aren't bothered by Rogan not "strictly adhering to liberal values", they're bothered by him not having an issue with inviting a Nazi on his show. You talk about "growing the faction", but you seem comfortable in doing so by downplaying bigotry.
Given numerous previous complaints from a lot of the same people about trying to convert centrist or Republican voters, I'm really not sure what the coherent position is supposed to be here. There does not seem to be a clear position on whether or how you are supposed to be growing the faction.
This whole "liberals should only go speak on platforms that strictly adhere to liberals values" seems sharply at odds with any desire to actually grow the faction.
It's interesting how you keep ducking the elephant in the room. People aren't bothered by Rogan not "strictly adhering to liberal values", they're bothered by him not having an issue with inviting a Nazi on his show. You talk about "growing the faction", but you seem comfortable in doing so by downplaying bigotry.
Given previous complaints from a lot of the same people about trying to convert centrist or Republican voters, I'm really not sure what the coherent position is supposed to be here.
Rogan's viewership is largely apolitical or at least non voting. A better target than trying to win over some soft right legacy case.
Peterson responded to a mass murder by arguing in the attackers favor and saying
“He was angry at God because women were rejecting him,” Peterson said of the alleged Toronto killer. “The cure for that is enforced monogamy. That’s actually why monogamy emerges.”
He does insist he's not alt right. That said he also uses the same buzzwords they do, just dressed up nicer, and talks about things like trans people having rights is "Marxism" that's going to cause gulags.
I think that was actually on a Rogan podcast and, if i recall correctly (id have to check again) I think Peterson was just talking about a much bigger point and it was more an intellectual discussion about various merits and theories.
And, even reading that line i dont get any impression that is "arguing in the attackers favor"
I don't think we gain anything by excommunicating Rogan and everyone who goes on or listens to his show. This feels more like an inquisition of heresy and consorts of heresy than any real examination of the value of Rogan's podcast.
Jephery on
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Harris is a massive bigoted asshole and so is Peterson but calling them Nazis just waters down the word to shitty right winger and miss me with that.
Really though, this endless "but lookat all these bad people he talked to!" thing is really kind of droll. Yeah, lots of bad people on the show, lots of good ones too. Not that many liberals, though I can see why. Its a big platform and smart people will take it when offered if they care more about spreading their message than their self serving righteousness.
I didn't call them Nazis - I called McInness that, because he is one. But I always find the downplaying of bigots as just "bad people" to be part of the reason we struggle with combating hate. It's like people are afraid to actually acknowledge what they are and the harm they do.
This is indistinguishable from tone policing
Now you're grasping at straws. There is a material difference between calling someone a "bad person", which is a rather nebulous and subjective phrase; and calling someone a bigot, which is decidedly less so.
The person you're quoting literally called Harris (and Peterson) "a massive bigoted asshole" so I really don't know why you're on their ass for the term "bad person".
This whole "liberals should only go speak on platforms that strictly adhere to liberals values" seems sharply at odds with any desire to actually grow the faction.
It's interesting how you keep ducking the elephant in the room. People aren't bothered by Rogan not "strictly adhering to liberal values", they're bothered by him not having an issue with inviting a Nazi on his show. You talk about "growing the faction", but you seem comfortable in doing so by downplaying bigotry.
Given previous complaints from a lot of the same people about trying to convert centrist or Republican voters, I'm really not sure what the coherent position is supposed to be here.
Rogan's viewership is largely apolitical or at least non voting. A better target than trying to win over some soft right legacy case.
First off, there's no such thing as "apolitical". Politics infuses our lives by its very nature. Given that, what's likely the case is that their political alignment is towards the status quo (this is what 'apolitical' means in practice), with a bit of dissent over issues they find important. Basically, he's attracting the sort of audience that a decade ago would be looking towards Matt Stone and Trey Parker. And that doesn't strike me to be the fertile soil everyone thinks it is.
I'm curious. If Fox News gave a 20 minute prime time slot to a left leaning/liberal/democrat without any sort of interruption or member of fox news to sit there any pepper them with loaded questions, would we have a problem with that as well?
That sort of seems to be the crux of the discussion. Is it better to wade into an echo chamber to get a voice we believe is worth hearing into people's ears, or do we risk people sticking around in the echo chamber if we open that door?
Regardless of what people think of Rogan in particular, I think this is a very interesting question that I'm not sure about. Youtube algorithms certainly cause problems, but I'd be curious to see a study about something like my Fox News hypothetical.
Yes, yes we would. Or should. I pointed this out on the first page with Warren's argument on this very subject. By appearing on a show or a network, you are monetarily supporting them and thus feeding them money to engage their actual agenda. When you appear on Fox News, you are helping fund Fox News' propaganda apparatus.
So when Jon Oliver does his Catheter Cowboy ad buys in an attempt to get a message out there, we should frown upon that? I'm not sure I agree. I also don't think fox News would benefit monetarily a lot from giving an ad free short segment in between programs to a democrat but maybe I am missing some other factor? I can't imagine a ton of dems would tune in and then stick around to watch tucker yell at people.
Warren makes the case pretty clearly in those tweets on the second page. Look, we know how you kill right-wing media. It's how we killed O'Reilley.
O'Reilley got canned because it came out that he had to settle 5 different sexual harassment lawsuits, which led to advertisers withdrawing from his show. Unless you're proposing that we get Fox News the corporation to sexually harass someone I fail to see your point.
Sure, losing advertisers kills right-wing media. It kills all media. As I pointed out last time this was brought up, Warren utterly fails to prove that appearing on Fox news draws in more ad money or that not appearing on it reduces it. In fact, the fails to prove the crux of her argument that Fox draws advertisers on the premise that it is a legitimate news outlet.
On the face of it that's a ridiculous argument. Advertisers don't care if you're a legitimate news outlet, they already advertise on strictly entertainment channels. Their job is to only care about viewer amounts, audience characteristics and favorability. O'Reilly didn't lose advertisers because his show was suddenly delegitimized as legit journalism (because it already wasn't that), he lost them because advertisers figured the benefits were outweighed by the backlash against them seeming to support a sexual harasser.
This whole "liberals should only go speak on platforms that strictly adhere to liberals values" seems sharply at odds with any desire to actually grow the faction.
It's interesting how you keep ducking the elephant in the room. People aren't bothered by Rogan not "strictly adhering to liberal values", they're bothered by him not having an issue with inviting a Nazi on his show. You talk about "growing the faction", but you seem comfortable in doing so by downplaying bigotry.
Given previous complaints from a lot of the same people about trying to convert centrist or Republican voters, I'm really not sure what the coherent position is supposed to be here.
Rogan's viewership is largely apolitical or at least non voting. A better target than trying to win over some soft right legacy case.
First off, there's no such thing as "apolitical". Politics infuses our lives by its very nature. Given that, what's likely the case is that their political alignment is towards the status quo (this is what 'apolitical' means in practice), with a bit of dissent over issues they find important. Basically, he's attracting the sort of audience that a decade ago would be looking towards Matt Stone and Trey Parker. And that doesn't strike me to be the fertile soil everyone thinks it is.
My friends who went from watching South Park to listening to Chapo Trap House would disagree.
This whole "liberals should only go speak on platforms that strictly adhere to liberals values" seems sharply at odds with any desire to actually grow the faction.
It's interesting how you keep ducking the elephant in the room. People aren't bothered by Rogan not "strictly adhering to liberal values", they're bothered by him not having an issue with inviting a Nazi on his show. You talk about "growing the faction", but you seem comfortable in doing so by downplaying bigotry.
Given previous complaints from a lot of the same people about trying to convert centrist or Republican voters, I'm really not sure what the coherent position is supposed to be here.
Rogan's viewership is largely apolitical or at least non voting. A better target than trying to win over some soft right legacy case.
How do you know this? Do you have a breakdown of his listeners?
0
Options
WhiteZinfandelYour insidesLet me show you themRegistered Userregular
hmm I guess my question when someone says they listen to Joe Rogan now should be "who is your favorite guest" before I start judging them.
"And why" if you actually care about having a good reason.
When you're having three hour conversations, it's easy to have some good and some bad. Eddie Bravo is fairly entertaining when he's not going on about conspiracy theory nonsense.
hmm I guess my question when someone says they listen to Joe Rogan now should be "who is your favorite guest" before I start judging them.
Most Enjoyed: James Hetfield or Sturgil Simpson, or Steven tyler
Most WTF is happening: Tom Delonge (which i'm still not convinced wasnt a big joke) or Rosanne Barr
Most Influencial: Michael A Wood by a mile.
+1
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
* eye roll. *
Hey guys, news flash, just because you dont agree with someone, even if their views can be taken as egregious it doesnt make them nazis.
Some people have shit ideas. Some people have shit ideas mixed with good idea. Some people have good ideas. Turns out people are people.
You dont "shock" anyone into action by calling people nazis. All you do is dilute the term. Considering that term is representative of some of the worst evil the world ever faced, we probably want to save that use until there are...you know...actual nazis.
Nazis like Gavin McInness, founder of the Proud Boys? Rogan's had him as a guest. Several times.
And also denounced his points, rascism, nazism, proud boys, and other things numerous times on his podcast as well. Or do you think that didnt come up in his 3 hour convo with Cornell West?
Did he do it to their face when they made outlandish claims or does he nod along with them while they are there and then challenge them in a totally different show with different guests?
Honestly dont know as it looks like the last time he was on was before i started watching/listening to the podcasts. Though i have gone back to listen to other older ones, i never felt the need to listen to this one.
However, knowing the "format" its entirely possible that nothing or substance was discussed OR that Gavin downplayed certain things to Rogan's face. Which, I've seen that happen too.
iirc the second and last podcast McInnes was on (feb '17) he had only recently founded proud boys and Joe Rogan was unaware of them. Most of the nazi shit McInnes has said and done has happened in the last two years, after his appearance on Rogan. So it's somewhat unfair to fault Rogan for not challenging him at the time.
* eye roll. *
Hey guys, news flash, just because you dont agree with someone, even if their views can be taken as egregious it doesnt make them nazis.
Some people have shit ideas. Some people have shit ideas mixed with good idea. Some people have good ideas. Turns out people are people.
You dont "shock" anyone into action by calling people nazis. All you do is dilute the term. Considering that term is representative of some of the worst evil the world ever faced, we probably want to save that use until there are...you know...actual nazis.
Nazis like Gavin McInness, founder of the Proud Boys? Rogan's had him as a guest. Several times.
And also denounced his points, rascism, nazism, proud boys, and other things numerous times on his podcast as well. Or do you think that didnt come up in his 3 hour convo with Cornell West?
Did he do it to their face when they made outlandish claims or does he nod along with them while they are there and then challenge them in a totally different show with different guests?
Honestly dont know as it looks like the last time he was on was before i started watching/listening to the podcasts. Though i have gone back to listen to other older ones, i never felt the need to listen to this one.
However, knowing the "format" its entirely possible that nothing or substance was discussed OR that Gavin downplayed certain things to Rogan's face. Which, I've seen that happen too.
iirc the second and last podcast McInnes was on (feb '17) he had only recently founded proud boys and Joe Rogan was unaware of them. Most of the nazi shit McInnes has said and done has happened in the last two years, after his appearance on Rogan. So it's somewhat unfair to fault Rogan for not challenging him at the time.
Note them defending the proud boy stuff as just poorly thought out jokes stuff.
Then spends time deflecting blame as much as possible.
until now we're talking about society maaaannn, and how folks like us, right here in this forum, are the problem.
Just totally glossing over shit, and weed babbling into new topics that are irrespective of the concern that he's introduced tons of folks to a white supremacist movement. That again, they portrayed as just jokes taken too far.
+5
Options
No-QuarterNothing To FearBut Fear ItselfRegistered Userregular
Has ANYONE in this thread listened to his interviews with people like Candace Owens, Ben Shapiro, and Milo Yiannopoulos? Not one or two, several.
I'm serious. I'm not going to because why would I want to waste my time listening to bigots spew their snake-oil.
I wanna see examples of their conversations where Rogan challenges them or calls them out. Not after the fact, to their faces.
He's not bound by the same strictures as some talking head on CNN bound by access, executive, or decorum. Wolf Blitzer isn't going to hand Elon Musk a blunt on the Situation Room.
+1
Options
No-QuarterNothing To FearBut Fear ItselfRegistered Userregular
hmm I guess my question when someone says they listen to Joe Rogan now should be "who is your favorite guest" before I start judging them.
Most Enjoyed: James Hetfield or Sturgil Simpson, or Steven tyler
Most WTF is happening: Tom Delonge (which i'm still not convinced wasnt a big joke) or Rosanne Barr
Most Influencial: Michael A Wood by a mile.
Have you listen to the ones with Shapiro, Milo, and Candace Owens?
Honest question
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
Radicalization is a funnel. Is Joe Rogan’s show the narrow part of the funnel? No, it’s pretty wide. But it’s still part of the funnel, and the fewer people who get into the funnel to begin with, the better.
It’s one thing to dip into the funnel and try to convince people to exit out the wide end. But it sounds like Bernie wasn’t preaching anti-alt right, he was just preaching his standard stump message. You can think non-whites are subhuman and also be in favor of higher taxes on the rich. Bernie may very well get some Rogan fans to vote for him; but he may also be paying for that by dumping some Bernie fans into the funnel.
Radicalization is a funnel. Is Joe Rogan’s show the narrow part of the funnel? No, it’s pretty wide. But it’s still part of the funnel, and the fewer people who get into the funnel to begin with, the better.
It’s one thing to dip into the funnel and try to convince people to exit out the wide end. But it sounds like Bernie wasn’t preaching anti-alt right, he was just preaching his standard stump message. You can think non-whites are subhuman and also be in favor of higher taxes on the rich. Bernie may very well get some Rogan fans to vote for him; but he may also be paying for that by dumping some Bernie fans into the funnel.
Radicalization isn't a funnel, it's a sieve. Hateful rhetoric will catch the attention of maladjusted losers with no purpose or direction in life and leave them in a position to stand out as monsters, but it won't turn decent people with meaningful social connections into weird outcasts.
Radicalization is a funnel. Is Joe Rogan’s show the narrow part of the funnel? No, it’s pretty wide. But it’s still part of the funnel, and the fewer people who get into the funnel to begin with, the better.
It’s one thing to dip into the funnel and try to convince people to exit out the wide end. But it sounds like Bernie wasn’t preaching anti-alt right, he was just preaching his standard stump message. You can think non-whites are subhuman and also be in favor of higher taxes on the rich. Bernie may very well get some Rogan fans to vote for him; but he may also be paying for that by dumping some Bernie fans into the funnel.
Radicalization isn't a funnel, it's a sieve. Hateful rhetoric will catch the attention of maladjusted losers with no purpose or direction in life and leave them in a position to stand out as monsters, but it won't turn decent people with meaningful social connections into weird outcasts.
Meaning, these guys aren’t just trolls in basements—they’re people you probably know. Beirich calls them “millennial misogynists.” K says many are college-educated and articulate. They have day jobs and Tinder accounts. In the fall of 2017, white supremacist propaganda on college campuses more than tripled from the previous year, according to ADL data. No wonder, per the FBI, that hate crimes rose about 17 percent too. (This number is probably even a vast undercount, since hate crimes are notoriously underreported.)
Modern “male supremacy,” as the experts now call it, actually dates back to the 1970s, when men’s rights activists came about as a reaction to women’s liberation, explains Jessica Reaves, editorial director for the ADL’s Center on Extremism. This time, it’s not just feminism to blame—it’s Donald Trump. I didn’t say it. Nearly every expert I talked to did. “The 2016 campaign energized misogynistic groups,” says Reaves. “They heard very powerful men talking about women in a way we had never seen before in public.”
Many of today’s extremists hide their radical views under the guise of boy-next-door preppy looks and organize activities, like all-male hikes, to appear mainstream. “They have a product they want to sell and that product is hate,” says K. “When you see a bunch of normal-looking guys, you think, How bad could it be? But violent men don’t have to look any different from kind men.” Some of the ones K tracks post pictures with their kids and pets amid their calls for mass violence.
It seems very strange that listening to Bernie one time has zero chance of turning any of Rogan's followers off the path of the alt right, but Bernie's followers are so callow that listening to Joe Rogan once will send them spiraling into nazidom by the hundreds .
It feels like that doesn't comes from a place of rational thought, but instead of bias against Bernie and his followers.
Posts
Nazis like Gavin McInness, founder of the Proud Boys? Rogan's had him as a guest. Several times.
Are you hoping someone will defend McInness or something?
And also denounced his points, rascism, nazism, proud boys, and other things numerous times on his podcast as well. Or do you think that didnt come up in his 3 hour convo with Cornell West?
Did he do it to their face when they made outlandish claims or does he nod along with them while they are there and then challenge them in a totally different show with different guests?
I'm pretty sure the founder of the Proud Boys counts as a Nazi, though.
And as for the other people we've discussed, we have Jordan Peterson, a transphobic misogynist who came to prominence by arguing that deadnaming was a matter of academic freedom ; Sam Harris, an Islamophobic neuroscientist who routinely and cluelessly opines on religion; and Ben Shapiro, who, well...Cody from Some More News puts it better than I can:
At a certain point, trying to argue that the problem is that someone just "disagrees" without discussing the disagreement is in the first place is just a form of dodging.
Honestly dont know as it looks like the last time he was on was before i started watching/listening to the podcasts. Though i have gone back to listen to other older ones, i never felt the need to listen to this one.
However, knowing the "format" its entirely possible that nothing or substance was discussed OR that Gavin downplayed certain things to Rogan's face. Which, I've seen that happen too.
Damn he had on Crenshaw? That's dope.
But that's a legit list. I recognize a bunch of them from feminist/critical race theory papers I've read. And a bunch from leftist activist circles.
I think it's clear that Bernie is no outlier and Rogan has provided plenty of space for leftist voices.
There's an easy solution to that problem - don't invite Nazis on your show.
Its not though because those are pretty disingenuous reads of those people. Which, no offense, you do a lot. You assume the worst and state it as fact and call people ___-ists because they dont agree with your world view. Ive ;listened to a NUMBER of Sam Harris podcasts as well, and he draws a much finer point than you accuse him of, and i suspect Peterson does as well.
Since you insist on calling Rogan alt-right adjacent and i KNOW that to not be true, i cant really take your opinion of Harris or Peterson at value either.
Really though, this endless "but lookat all these bad people he talked to!" thing is really kind of droll. Yeah, lots of bad people on the show, lots of good ones too. Not that many liberals, though I can see why. Its a big platform and smart people will take it when offered if they care more about spreading their message than their self serving righteousness.
Well he hasn't had a bunch of my favourite leftists on so I still hate him.
He does insist he's not alt right. That said he also uses the same buzzwords they do, just dressed up nicer, and talks about things like trans people having rights is "Marxism" that's going to cause gulags.
I didn't call them Nazis - I called McInness that, because he is one. But I always find the downplaying of bigots as just "bad people" to be part of the reason we struggle with combating hate. It's like people are afraid to actually acknowledge what they are and the harm they do.
Edit: And this is why I said that you downplay bigotry - because you use words that downplay it.
This is indistinguishable from tone policing
Now you're grasping at straws. There is a material difference between calling someone a "bad person", which is a rather nebulous and subjective phrase; and calling someone a bigot, which is decidedly less so.
Given numerous previous complaints from a lot of the same people about trying to convert centrist or Republican voters, I'm really not sure what the coherent position is supposed to be here. There does not seem to be a clear position on whether or how you are supposed to be growing the faction.
Rogan's viewership is largely apolitical or at least non voting. A better target than trying to win over some soft right legacy case.
I think that was actually on a Rogan podcast and, if i recall correctly (id have to check again) I think Peterson was just talking about a much bigger point and it was more an intellectual discussion about various merits and theories.
And, even reading that line i dont get any impression that is "arguing in the attackers favor"
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
The person you're quoting literally called Harris (and Peterson) "a massive bigoted asshole" so I really don't know why you're on their ass for the term "bad person".
First off, there's no such thing as "apolitical". Politics infuses our lives by its very nature. Given that, what's likely the case is that their political alignment is towards the status quo (this is what 'apolitical' means in practice), with a bit of dissent over issues they find important. Basically, he's attracting the sort of audience that a decade ago would be looking towards Matt Stone and Trey Parker. And that doesn't strike me to be the fertile soil everyone thinks it is.
O'Reilley got canned because it came out that he had to settle 5 different sexual harassment lawsuits, which led to advertisers withdrawing from his show. Unless you're proposing that we get Fox News the corporation to sexually harass someone I fail to see your point.
Sure, losing advertisers kills right-wing media. It kills all media. As I pointed out last time this was brought up, Warren utterly fails to prove that appearing on Fox news draws in more ad money or that not appearing on it reduces it. In fact, the fails to prove the crux of her argument that Fox draws advertisers on the premise that it is a legitimate news outlet.
On the face of it that's a ridiculous argument. Advertisers don't care if you're a legitimate news outlet, they already advertise on strictly entertainment channels. Their job is to only care about viewer amounts, audience characteristics and favorability. O'Reilly didn't lose advertisers because his show was suddenly delegitimized as legit journalism (because it already wasn't that), he lost them because advertisers figured the benefits were outweighed by the backlash against them seeming to support a sexual harasser.
My friends who went from watching South Park to listening to Chapo Trap House would disagree.
How do you know this? Do you have a breakdown of his listeners?
"And why" if you actually care about having a good reason.
When you're having three hour conversations, it's easy to have some good and some bad. Eddie Bravo is fairly entertaining when he's not going on about conspiracy theory nonsense.
Most Enjoyed: James Hetfield or Sturgil Simpson, or Steven tyler
Most WTF is happening: Tom Delonge (which i'm still not convinced wasnt a big joke) or Rosanne Barr
Most Influencial: Michael A Wood by a mile.
iirc the second and last podcast McInnes was on (feb '17) he had only recently founded proud boys and Joe Rogan was unaware of them. Most of the nazi shit McInnes has said and done has happened in the last two years, after his appearance on Rogan. So it's somewhat unfair to fault Rogan for not challenging him at the time.
Here he is on the topic himself though:
Note them defending the proud boy stuff as just poorly thought out jokes stuff.
Then spends time deflecting blame as much as possible.
until now we're talking about society maaaannn, and how folks like us, right here in this forum, are the problem.
Just totally glossing over shit, and weed babbling into new topics that are irrespective of the concern that he's introduced tons of folks to a white supremacist movement. That again, they portrayed as just jokes taken too far.
I'm serious. I'm not going to because why would I want to waste my time listening to bigots spew their snake-oil.
I wanna see examples of their conversations where Rogan challenges them or calls them out. Not after the fact, to their faces.
He's not bound by the same strictures as some talking head on CNN bound by access, executive, or decorum. Wolf Blitzer isn't going to hand Elon Musk a blunt on the Situation Room.
Have you listen to the ones with Shapiro, Milo, and Candace Owens?
Honest question
It’s one thing to dip into the funnel and try to convince people to exit out the wide end. But it sounds like Bernie wasn’t preaching anti-alt right, he was just preaching his standard stump message. You can think non-whites are subhuman and also be in favor of higher taxes on the rich. Bernie may very well get some Rogan fans to vote for him; but he may also be paying for that by dumping some Bernie fans into the funnel.
Radicalization isn't a funnel, it's a sieve. Hateful rhetoric will catch the attention of maladjusted losers with no purpose or direction in life and leave them in a position to stand out as monsters, but it won't turn decent people with meaningful social connections into weird outcasts.
Radicalization doesn't work like that:
It feels like that doesn't comes from a place of rational thought, but instead of bias against Bernie and his followers.