So say Rogan's audience with leftists and right wing types is X and more liberals coming on makes it 1.3X, that 30% increase is because theyre now hearing more liberalism and really all it comes down to is do you really have so little faith in the ability of your message to win out?
This thread: "Guys no one is defending Joe Rogan" followed by pages on pages of defending Joe Rogan by saying his guests were not part of the Third Reich in the 1930s and 40s so they don't count an Nazis.
You can be moderates on racism if you want, but it doesn't change the fact that Rogan hosts white supremacists and Nazis, bangs the "actually reverse racism is the problem" drum, promotes conspiracy theories and says stuff like
You're using the present tense in "says" there but you're using a clip of a joke that looks like it's 6+ years old. I'd bet dollars to donuts that if he was asked about that clip today, he'd admit it was a dumb thing to say.
So say Rogan's audience with leftists and right wing types is X and more liberals coming on makes it 1.3X, that 30% increase is because theyre now hearing more liberalism and really all it comes down to is do you really have so little faith in the ability of your message to win out?
Hearing more liberalism *once* followed by what?
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
This thread: "Guys no one is defending Joe Rogan" followed by pages on pages of defending Joe Rogan by saying his guests were not part of the Third Reich in the 1930s and 40s so they don't count an Nazis.
You can be moderates on racism if you want, but it doesn't change the fact that Rogan hosts white supremacists and Nazis, bangs the "actually reverse racism is the problem" drum, promotes conspiracy theories and says stuff like
Defining "defending" as anyone who disagrees with your interpretation and opinions on the topic isnpretty goosey, pants.
No, attempt to contradict or mitigate criticisms of a person is the definition of defending
The easy way to tell Im defending Joe Rogan is because I call him a vapid starfucker who doesnt really care about the values expressed on his show as long as theyre entertaining. Its a classic rhetorical defense.
Yes. It's like saying Trump isn't really a racist he just wants to rile up voters. When you offer a better alternative, especially one that serves your rhetorical purpose, its defending someone.
By that definition you're defending any person when you're disagreeing with the accusation that they are literally baby Hitler.
i mean I suppose it's true or whatever but it makes your point pretty meaningless. Yeah sure we're all defending Rogan by not agreeing with every accusation you throw at him. You caught us. Obviously Styro didn't mean that no one was defending Rogan's actual views and actions, despite that being the generally understood meaning of that word, he meant no one disagreed with your specific framing of the issue.
So say Rogan's audience with leftists and right wing types is X and more liberals coming on makes it 1.3X, that 30% increase is because theyre now hearing more liberalism and really all it comes down to is do you really have so little faith in the ability of your message to win out?
Hearing more liberalism *once* followed by what?
Well the idea is you keep using the platform, not put one of those human boat shoes from Pod on there once and call it a day
So say Rogan's audience with leftists and right wing types is X and more liberals coming on makes it 1.3X, that 30% increase is because theyre now hearing more liberalism and really all it comes down to is do you really have so little faith in the ability of your message to win out?
Hearing more liberalism *once* followed by what?
Well the idea is you keep using the platform, not put one of those human boat shoes from Pod on there once and call it a day
Except that you're not the one who gets to decide if you get to keep using the platform. Joe Rogan is.
So say Rogan's audience with leftists and right wing types is X and more liberals coming on makes it 1.3X, that 30% increase is because theyre now hearing more liberalism and really all it comes down to is do you really have so little faith in the ability of your message to win out?
Hearing more liberalism *once* followed by what?
Well the idea is you keep using the platform, not put one of those human boat shoes from Pod on there once and call it a day
Except that you're not the one who gets to decide if you get to keep using the platform. Joe Rogan is.
And as we know hes willing to have basically anyone with some draw on. Youve seen the list of leftists hes had. If all of the liberal machine cant produce some names to get on board youve got a bigger problem than Sanders on Rogan
+2
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
Honestly a lot of this sounds like it comes from a place of insecurity like even just hearing the occasional Shapiro interview between MMA and MDT anecdotes is a poison not to be bourn.
Add to that the weirdness of thinking youre somehow fighting it by refusing to even talk in the same spaces.
So tell me - how much bigotry are we supposed to tolerate in the name of reaching out? How much racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, etc. are we supposed to just let slide as part of our efforts to bring people into the fold?
Hedgie I went to college with someone who was a gigantic racist teetering on the edge of white nationalism. Huge confederate flag tacked up on one wall of his living room. His father once lectured me on the dangers of miscegenation. We clear about the type of person we're talking about? Cool.
We marched next to each other in band, there really wasn't any way to get away from him. Through many, many conversations as well as being exposed to other people and discovering that they were not in fact illiterate subhumans who would steal anything you set down he came out the other side. His most recent post on Facebook was a genuine offer of help to anyone who was impacted by the recent ICE raids in Mississippi (he grew up not far from where they took place; a mutual friend of ours may have actually worked at the same chicken processing plant for a few summers.) I posted when Warren was hosting her town hall in Jackson a couple months ago and he blew my damn phone up trying to figure out how to get in. He is decidedly one of us.
I would submit that if your tolerance for these people is literal zero, you will never actually convert any of them, and they will raise their children to believe the same shit. You don't actually stop racism by shoving it down the memory hole. You deal with it by dealing with it. And some of that requires being willing to engage with bad people (or go into bad spaces) to actually have those conversations.
If we believe liberal ideals are better we should be willing to go into the ugly spaces and proselytize and trust that these ideals will win people over. If we don't then we should just get it over with and balkanize.
I think the reason for this view that the other side can't be convinced or reasoned with is the fact that the pundits of that side can't be convinced or reasoned with. Tucker and Shapiro will never be convinced or honestly engage in debate, so by extension those with the same beliefs won't either. But the reason those guys won't be convinced is because their livelihood depends on it, as the quote goes. These grifters and pundits will never be convinced, and it is foolish to try it.
But the point is never to convince your opponent. It is to convince the audience. And the idea that the audience here can't be convinced is unproven and seems very dismissive of them as people.
So say Rogan's audience with leftists and right wing types is X and more liberals coming on makes it 1.3X, that 30% increase is because theyre now hearing more liberalism and really all it comes down to is do you really have so little faith in the ability of your message to win out?
Hearing more liberalism *once* followed by what?
Well the idea is you keep using the platform, not put one of those human boat shoes from Pod on there once and call it a day
Except that you're not the one who gets to decide if you get to keep using the platform. Joe Rogan is.
And as we know hes willing to have basically anyone with some draw on. Youve seen the list of leftists hes had. If all of the liberal machine cant produce some names to get on board youve got a bigger problem than Sanders on Rogan
I don't see why it's a "problem" that the bigger names who are leftist don't feel that lending credibility to Joe Rogan is worth the "exposure" his platform would give them?
Honestly a lot of this sounds like it comes from a place of insecurity like even just hearing the occasional Shapiro interview between MMA and MDT anecdotes is a poison not to be bourn.
Add to that the weirdness of thinking youre somehow fighting it by refusing to even talk in the same spaces.
So tell me - how much bigotry are we supposed to tolerate in the name of reaching out? How much racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, etc. are we supposed to just let slide as part of our efforts to bring people into the fold?
Hedgie I went to college with someone who was a gigantic racist teetering on the edge of white nationalism. Huge confederate flag tacked up on one wall of his living room. His father once lectured me on the dangers of miscegenation. We clear about the type of person we're talking about? Cool.
We marched next to each other in band, there really wasn't any way to get away from him. Through many, many conversations as well as being exposed to other people and discovering that they were not in fact illiterate subhumans who would steal anything you set down he came out the other side. His most recent post on Facebook was a genuine offer of help to anyone who was impacted by the recent ICE raids in Mississippi (he grew up not far from where they took place; a mutual friend of ours may have actually worked at the same chicken processing plant for a few summers.) I posted when Warren was hosting her town hall in Jackson a couple months ago and he blew my damn phone up trying to figure out how to get in. He is decidedly one of us.
I would submit that if your tolerance for these people is literal zero, you will never actually convert any of them, and they will raise their children to believe the same shit. You don't actually stop racism by shoving it down the memory hole. You deal with it by dealing with it. And some of that requires being willing to engage with bad people (or go into bad spaces) to actually have those conversations.
If we believe liberal ideals are better we should be willing to go into the ugly spaces and proselytize and trust that these ideals will win people over. If we don't then we should just get it over with and balkanize.
I think the reason for this view that the other side can't be convinced or reasoned with is the fact that the pundits of that side can't be convinced or reasoned with. Tucker and Shapiro will never be convinced or honestly engage in debate, so by extension those with the same beliefs won't either. But the reason those guys won't be convinced is because their livelihood depends on it, as the quote goes. These grifters and pundits will never be convinced, and it is foolish to try it.
But the point is never to convince your opponent. It is to convince the audience. And the idea that the audience here can't be convinced is unproven and seems very dismissive of them as people.
I agree.
A couple years ago I taught an ethics class in a maximum security prison. Once during class a student talked about having personally killed someone, during a unit on drug addiction and regulation; another about having frequented prostitutes that he could tell were strung out on drugs. I wasn't their therapist, or their confessor, I wasn't there to talk about that or make it right. I didn't confront them on it. I just went in to talk to them in a pretty general way about readings, to guide discussions and encourage good questions and discussions, etc., just because I thought it was a good thing to do to for its own sake.
"Told a racist joke, and it was gross" seems not as bad to me as "literally killed someone." I don't know what the standards are supposed to be here, or who we're supposed to think is 'saveable' or not, or when personal morality is supposed to matter or not. I think it's completely schizophrenic if the new left wing morality is that talking to Alex Jones or w/e means we draw Xs over your eyes and you're out forever, but actually killing someone means that we should start thinking about your circumstances and compassion and did you know that Norway has a totally different rehabilitative approach--here, read this semi-longform essay in slate.
The class I taught wasn't about contemporary politics, so I didn't have much occasion to stump. Nor do I have any idea whether prisoners can vote in that state. I will say that I would be happy to talk to any of the students about it if I could, because they're still people, and if they can vote they should do it in a good way. That has nothing to do with all the bad stuff they've done, which is between them and god. I don't think that being seen next to someone means you think everything they've done is okay, and I don't agree with the idea that people who have done really bad things in one respect cannot be worth talking to about something completely different.
With respect to my earlier doubts in this thread about the causal story here--if someone had really good social science data about appearing on Joe Rogan leading to mass violence, I would respect that. But no one does. It's just a bunch of punditry, in the pejorative sense. In absence of strong case, I say: yes, go out, talk to anyone who will listen. I don't give a fk who they are. Can you persuade them to vote thoughtfully, and well? Okay, then you did one good thing.
Honestly a lot of this sounds like it comes from a place of insecurity like even just hearing the occasional Shapiro interview between MMA and MDT anecdotes is a poison not to be bourn.
Add to that the weirdness of thinking youre somehow fighting it by refusing to even talk in the same spaces.
So tell me - how much bigotry are we supposed to tolerate in the name of reaching out? How much racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, etc. are we supposed to just let slide as part of our efforts to bring people into the fold?
Hedgie I went to college with someone who was a gigantic racist teetering on the edge of white nationalism. Huge confederate flag tacked up on one wall of his living room. His father once lectured me on the dangers of miscegenation. We clear about the type of person we're talking about? Cool.
We marched next to each other in band, there really wasn't any way to get away from him. Through many, many conversations as well as being exposed to other people and discovering that they were not in fact illiterate subhumans who would steal anything you set down he came out the other side. His most recent post on Facebook was a genuine offer of help to anyone who was impacted by the recent ICE raids in Mississippi (he grew up not far from where they took place; a mutual friend of ours may have actually worked at the same chicken processing plant for a few summers.) I posted when Warren was hosting her town hall in Jackson a couple months ago and he blew my damn phone up trying to figure out how to get in. He is decidedly one of us.
I would submit that if your tolerance for these people is literal zero, you will never actually convert any of them, and they will raise their children to believe the same shit. You don't actually stop racism by shoving it down the memory hole. You deal with it by dealing with it. And some of that requires being willing to engage with bad people (or go into bad spaces) to actually have those conversations.
If we believe liberal ideals are better we should be willing to go into the ugly spaces and proselytize and trust that these ideals will win people over. If we don't then we should just get it over with and balkanize.
I think the reason for this view that the other side can't be convinced or reasoned with is the fact that the pundits of that side can't be convinced or reasoned with. Tucker and Shapiro will never be convinced or honestly engage in debate, so by extension those with the same beliefs won't either. But the reason those guys won't be convinced is because their livelihood depends on it, as the quote goes. These grifters and pundits will never be convinced, and it is foolish to try it.
But the point is never to convince your opponent. It is to convince the audience. And the idea that the audience here can't be convinced is unproven and seems very dismissive of them as people.
I agree.
A couple years ago I taught an ethics class in a maximum security prison. Once during class a student talked about having personally killed someone, during a unit on drug addiction and regulation; another about having frequented prostitutes that he could tell were strung out on drugs. I wasn't their therapist, or their confessor, I wasn't there to talk about that or make it right. I didn't confront them on it. I just went in to talk to them in a pretty general way about readings, to guide discussions and encourage good questions and discussions, etc., just because I thought it was a good thing to do to for its own sake.
"Told a racist joke, and it was gross" seems not as bad to me as "literally killed someone." I don't know what the standards are supposed to be here, or who we're supposed to think is 'saveable' or not, or when personal morality is supposed to matter or not. I think it's completely schizophrenic if the new left wing morality is that talking to Alex Jones or w/e means we draw Xs over your eyes and you're out forever, but actually killing someone means that we should start thinking about your circumstances and compassion and did you know that Norway has a totally different rehabilitative approach--here, read this semi-longform essay in slate.
The class I taught wasn't about contemporary politics, so I didn't have much occasion to stump. Nor do I have any idea whether prisoners can vote in that state. I will say that I would be happy to talk to any of the students about it if I could, because they're still people, and if they can vote they should do it in a good way. That has nothing to do with all the bad stuff they've done, which is between them and god. I don't think that being seen next to someone means you think everything they've done is okay, and I don't agree with the idea that people who have done really bad things in one respect cannot be worth talking to about something completely different.
With respect to my earlier doubts in this thread about the causal story here--if someone had really good social science data about appearing on Joe Rogan leading to mass violence, I would respect that. But no one does. It's just a bunch of punditry, in the pejorative sense. In absence of strong case, I say: yes, go out, talk to anyone who will listen. I don't give a fk who they are. Can you persuade them to vote thoughtfully, and well? Okay, then you did one good thing.
Bring things back to the theme in the thread title and think about responsible media engagement or whatever. The moral evaluations people do of media figures or platforms, and the political figures that use them (and vice versa) are not going to use the same criteria as the moral evaluations of criminals in prison. As much as I disagree with some of the conclusions being drawn, or the particular standard (only the bad things really count) I don't disagree with holding people like Rogan to a different standard.
If we believe liberal ideals are better we should be willing to go into the ugly spaces and proselytize and trust that these ideals will win people over. If we don't then we should just get it over with and balkanize.
It's important for liberals to reach out to conservatives, I agree. Where I disagree is doing it in places where traction is impossible to get and you're not going to get it from Rogan. He's not interested, as Hedgie's article showed it'd hurt his bank account and he refuses to accept the responsibility of being a media figure.
With respect to my earlier doubts in this thread about the causal story here--if someone had really good social science data about appearing on Joe Rogan leading to mass violence, I would respect that. But no one does. It's just a bunch of punditry, in the pejorative sense. In absence of strong case, I say: yes, go out, talk to anyone who will listen. I don't give a fk who they are. Can you persuade them to vote thoughtfully, and well? Okay, then you did one good thing.
People have given several examples in this thread, and the last. Since you're a veteran here it's puzzling why you're ignoring the history of the controversial people Rogan's had on his show, as though they have been harmless or that he's been rehabilitating anybody when his format is about isolating those elements from one another. You're not going to see Bernie Sanders debate Ben Shapiro on his podcast.
Here are some obvious examples of people he's befriended and who he view them as harmless pranksters. There are others, but we'll stick with these two.
Hate group founder who quit when the FBI started knocking on his door when his group violently attacked people.
How Rogan reacted to these incidents and the people responsible for it is reprehensible, which impacts how he his viewers see them and speaks of how Rogan wants to be seen - this is a bind for people on the left and candidates who shouldn't want to go on a podcast who normalises those activities, which they would be by not confronting Rogan about this. Being mercenary I get, where I draw the line is abetting in normalising figures like Alex Jones and Gavin McInnes. Any candidate who relies on Rogan as a lifeboat is already on life support, and this is going to add another disadvantage if they somehow becomes the nominee which will decrease turnout from liberals. This is why Elisabeth Warren won't get within ten blocks of Joe Rogan.
I, too, would like to see media data on both sides, you disagreeing with liberals on this subject isn't evidence the pro-Rogan side is right. Where is that hard data that liberals and leftists going on Rogan are doing what is being claimed?
Talking to someone is not the same as convincing them, if that was true we wouldn't need Rogan's influence to impact those people. Not every Republican is secretly a leftist waiting to break out, the ideology we're fighting against includes modern Nazis, mega conservative propaganda channels like Fox News and throwing kids in cages. Rogan isn't doing anything about any of those subjects, aside from getting rich off it. That's why it's pointless for candidates and people on the left to go on there. You're thinking of ContraPoints, who has a history of breaking through the boundaries and who bothers to spent more than five seconds researching what she's doing. Rogan is no ContraPoints.
+2
Options
MonwynApathy's a tragedy, and boredom is a crime.A little bit of everything, all of the time.Registered Userregular
Hate group founder who quit when the FBI started knocking on his door when his group violently attacked people.
This is disingenuous. Again, McInnes has been on Rogan's show twice: once in 2015, when the only thing he'd done was found and then get kicked out of Vice Magazine, and once in Feb 2017. The Proud Boys were formed in September 2016, and to that point the only notable thing they'd done was scuffle with some Antifa protestors outside of NYU. As best I can tell it didn't even make the mainstream local news outlets in NYC - wiki links Gothamist and Village Voice for its sources on the incident - and Rogan lives in LA. It seems vastly more likely to me that McInnes was brought on to talk about Vice and drugs - which is, like extremely on-brand for Rogan - than because of his fascist leanings, which Rogan likely wasn't even aware of. Again, I pay pretty close attention to this shit, and I don't think I'd have been aware of it in February 2017, because I'm only on Twitter like once a week.
If we believe liberal ideals are better we should be willing to go into the ugly spaces and proselytize and trust that these ideals will win people over. If we don't then we should just get it over with and balkanize.
It's important for liberals to reach out to conservatives, I agree. Where I disagree is doing it in places where traction is impossible to get and you're not going to get it from Rogan. He's not interested, as Hedgie's article showed it'd hurt his bank account and he refuses to accept the responsibility of being a media figure.
With respect to my earlier doubts in this thread about the causal story here--if someone had really good social science data about appearing on Joe Rogan leading to mass violence, I would respect that. But no one does. It's just a bunch of punditry, in the pejorative sense. In absence of strong case, I say: yes, go out, talk to anyone who will listen. I don't give a fk who they are. Can you persuade them to vote thoughtfully, and well? Okay, then you did one good thing.
People have given several examples in this thread, and the last. Since you're a veteran here it's puzzling why you're ignoring the history of the controversial people Rogan's had on his show, as though they have been harmless or that he's been rehabilitating anybody when his format is about isolating those elements from one another. You're not going to see Bernie Sanders debate Ben Shapiro on his podcast.
Here are some obvious examples of people he's befriended and who he view them as harmless pranksters. There are others, but we'll stick with these two.
Hate group founder who quit when the FBI started knocking on his door when his group violently attacked people.
How Rogan reacted to these incidents and the people responsible for it is reprehensible, which impacts how he his viewers see them and speaks of how Rogan wants to be seen - this is a bind for people on the left and candidates who shouldn't want to go on a podcast who normalises those activities, which they would be by not confronting Rogan about this. Being mercenary I get, where I draw the line is abetting in normalising figures like Alex Jones and Gavin McInnes. Any candidate who relies on Rogan as a lifeboat is already on life support, and this is going to add another disadvantage if they somehow becomes the nominee which will decrease turnout from liberals. This is why Elisabeth Warren won't get within ten blocks of Joe Rogan.
I, too, would like to see media data on both sides, you disagreeing with liberals on this subject isn't evidence the pro-Rogan side is right. Where is that hard data that liberals and leftists going on Rogan are doing what is being claimed?
Talking to someone is not the same as convincing them, if that was true we wouldn't need Rogan's influence to impact those people. Not every Republican is secretly a leftist waiting to break out, the ideology we're fighting against includes modern Nazis, mega conservative propaganda channels like Fox News and throwing kids in cages. Rogan isn't doing anything about any of those subjects, aside from getting rich off it. That's why it's pointless for candidates and people on the left to go on there. You're thinking of ContraPoints, who has a history of breaking through the boundaries and who bothers to spent more than five seconds researching what she's doing. Rogan is no ContraPoints.
The data is who wins the primary, then who wins the election.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
This is disingenuous. Again, McInnes has been on Rogan's show twice: once in 2015, when the only thing he'd done was found and then get kicked out of Vice Magazine, and once in Feb 2017. The Proud Boys were formed in September 2016, and to that point the only notable thing they'd done was scuffle with some Antifa protestors outside of NYU. As best I can tell it didn't even make the mainstream local news outlets in NYC - wiki links Gothamist and Village Voice for its sources on the incident - and Rogan lives in LA. It seems vastly more likely to me that McInnes was brought on to talk about Vice and drugs - which is, like extremely on-brand for Rogan - than because of his fascist leanings, which Rogan likely wasn't even aware of. Again, I pay pretty close attention to this shit, and I don't think I'd have been aware of it in February 2017, because I'm only on Twitter like once a week.
By 2017 any excuse Rogan had for excusing McInnes went out the door, of course it's not like he couldn't keep up with McInnes in the news or through his friends in Hollywood or on Google. Where he lives isn't relevant in the age of the internet. Rogan isn't a person who's generally aware of anything outside of surface level of his guests at the best of times. Look at this:
“Racism isn’t a thing,” McInnes said in the same September Infowars appearance in which he described neighborhood spats. “So why are you so obsessed with it?”
McInnes uses these broadcasts to craft his public profile as an edgy, conservative grouch. He’s used punk-rock posturing to present himself as a counterculture voice in decidedly un-punk outlets like Fox News. When he talks about street violence, it’s nostalgic, hitting Fox News-friendly notes about the supposed decline of masculinity.
Rogan knew he had a podcast and about the Proud Boys, yet he wouldn't bother to simply listen to what those podcasts had to say to raise any alarms. Rogan isn't like you or me, he had a lot more investment in those scenes being a Hollywood celebrity and being an avid fan of Info Wars.
But let's say you're right, it's possible McInness was outside of Rogan's circle to notice - which is a plausible explanation.
The data is who wins the primary, then who wins the election.
Nope. The position was that Bernie going on Rogan would be a factor in letting him or boosting his numbers, being the nominee proves nothing aside from he can win the nomination. The devil is in the details, Paladin.
The data mrmr is leaning on is recidivism rates in countries that attempt to rehabilitate violent offenders VS those that just cut them off from society as much as possible.
Which is an insightful connection if you spend sometime thinking about it.
Honestly a lot of this sounds like it comes from a place of insecurity like even just hearing the occasional Shapiro interview between MMA and MDT anecdotes is a poison not to be bourn.
Add to that the weirdness of thinking youre somehow fighting it by refusing to even talk in the same spaces.
So tell me - how much bigotry are we supposed to tolerate in the name of reaching out? How much racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, etc. are we supposed to just let slide as part of our efforts to bring people into the fold?
Hedgie I went to college with someone who was a gigantic racist teetering on the edge of white nationalism. Huge confederate flag tacked up on one wall of his living room. His father once lectured me on the dangers of miscegenation. We clear about the type of person we're talking about? Cool.
We marched next to each other in band, there really wasn't any way to get away from him. Through many, many conversations as well as being exposed to other people and discovering that they were not in fact illiterate subhumans who would steal anything you set down he came out the other side. His most recent post on Facebook was a genuine offer of help to anyone who was impacted by the recent ICE raids in Mississippi (he grew up not far from where they took place; a mutual friend of ours may have actually worked at the same chicken processing plant for a few summers.) I posted when Warren was hosting her town hall in Jackson a couple months ago and he blew my damn phone up trying to figure out how to get in. He is decidedly one of us.
I would submit that if your tolerance for these people is literal zero, you will never actually convert any of them, and they will raise their children to believe the same shit. You don't actually stop racism by shoving it down the memory hole. You deal with it by dealing with it. And some of that requires being willing to engage with bad people (or go into bad spaces) to actually have those conversations.
If we believe liberal ideals are better we should be willing to go into the ugly spaces and proselytize and trust that these ideals will win people over. If we don't then we should just get it over with and balkanize.
I think the reason for this view that the other side can't be convinced or reasoned with is the fact that the pundits of that side can't be convinced or reasoned with. Tucker and Shapiro will never be convinced or honestly engage in debate, so by extension those with the same beliefs won't either. But the reason those guys won't be convinced is because their livelihood depends on it, as the quote goes. These grifters and pundits will never be convinced, and it is foolish to try it.
But the point is never to convince your opponent. It is to convince the audience. And the idea that the audience here can't be convinced is unproven and seems very dismissive of them as people.
I agree.
A couple years ago I taught an ethics class in a maximum security prison. Once during class a student talked about having personally killed someone, during a unit on drug addiction and regulation; another about having frequented prostitutes that he could tell were strung out on drugs. I wasn't their therapist, or their confessor, I wasn't there to talk about that or make it right. I didn't confront them on it. I just went in to talk to them in a pretty general way about readings, to guide discussions and encourage good questions and discussions, etc., just because I thought it was a good thing to do to for its own sake.
"Told a racist joke, and it was gross" seems not as bad to me as "literally killed someone." I don't know what the standards are supposed to be here, or who we're supposed to think is 'saveable' or not, or when personal morality is supposed to matter or not. I think it's completely schizophrenic if the new left wing morality is that talking to Alex Jones or w/e means we draw Xs over your eyes and you're out forever, but actually killing someone means that we should start thinking about your circumstances and compassion and did you know that Norway has a totally different rehabilitative approach--here, read this semi-longform essay in slate.
The class I taught wasn't about contemporary politics, so I didn't have much occasion to stump. Nor do I have any idea whether prisoners can vote in that state. I will say that I would be happy to talk to any of the students about it if I could, because they're still people, and if they can vote they should do it in a good way. That has nothing to do with all the bad stuff they've done, which is between them and god. I don't think that being seen next to someone means you think everything they've done is okay, and I don't agree with the idea that people who have done really bad things in one respect cannot be worth talking to about something completely different.
With respect to my earlier doubts in this thread about the causal story here--if someone had really good social science data about appearing on Joe Rogan leading to mass violence, I would respect that. But no one does. It's just a bunch of punditry, in the pejorative sense. In absence of strong case, I say: yes, go out, talk to anyone who will listen. I don't give a fk who they are. Can you persuade them to vote thoughtfully, and well? Okay, then you did one good thing.
Bring things back to the theme in the thread title and think about responsible media engagement or whatever. The moral evaluations people do of media figures or platforms, and the political figures that use them (and vice versa) are not going to use the same criteria as the moral evaluations of criminals in prison. As much as I disagree with some of the conclusions being drawn, or the particular standard (only the bad things really count) I don't disagree with holding people like Rogan to a different standard.
This is wrong. Mrmr isn't holding Rogan to a different standard. What mrmr is arguing is that we don't abandon Rogan's audience.
That is who Mrmr is arguing for, not Rogan himself. They are the ones we should seek to rehabilitate.
BSoB on
+1
Options
MonwynApathy's a tragedy, and boredom is a crime.A little bit of everything, all of the time.Registered Userregular
I think the fastest way to delegitimize Alex Jones is to let as many people as possible hear him rant about reptiloid demons from Mars who are engaging in mass mind control via chemtrails using toxins derived from the Hale-Bopp comet or whatever the fuck.
I also don't think Jones really had anything to do with people believing that Sandy Hook was a false flag. I think people believed that Sandy Hook was a false flag (these accusations happen literally any time a shooting makes the news within seconds of the article being posted; I remember idiots at my middle school saying the same shit after Columbine) and then started listening to Jones.
I think the fastest way to delegitimize Alex Jones is to let as many people as possible hear him rant about reptiloid demons from Mars who are engaging in mass mind control via chemtrails using toxins derived from the Hale-Bopp comet or whatever the fuck.
I also don't think Jones really had anything to do with people believing that Sandy Hook was a false flag. I think people believed that Sandy Hook was a false flag (these accusations happen literally any time a shooting makes the news within seconds of the article being posted; I remember idiots at my middle school saying the same shit after Columbine) and then started listening to Jones.
You only delegitimize him among most people.
But you will also end with people who believe him, and go shoot up a pizza parlor.
Honestly a lot of this sounds like it comes from a place of insecurity like even just hearing the occasional Shapiro interview between MMA and MDT anecdotes is a poison not to be bourn.
Add to that the weirdness of thinking youre somehow fighting it by refusing to even talk in the same spaces.
So tell me - how much bigotry are we supposed to tolerate in the name of reaching out? How much racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, etc. are we supposed to just let slide as part of our efforts to bring people into the fold?
Hedgie I went to college with someone who was a gigantic racist teetering on the edge of white nationalism. Huge confederate flag tacked up on one wall of his living room. His father once lectured me on the dangers of miscegenation. We clear about the type of person we're talking about? Cool.
We marched next to each other in band, there really wasn't any way to get away from him. Through many, many conversations as well as being exposed to other people and discovering that they were not in fact illiterate subhumans who would steal anything you set down he came out the other side. His most recent post on Facebook was a genuine offer of help to anyone who was impacted by the recent ICE raids in Mississippi (he grew up not far from where they took place; a mutual friend of ours may have actually worked at the same chicken processing plant for a few summers.) I posted when Warren was hosting her town hall in Jackson a couple months ago and he blew my damn phone up trying to figure out how to get in. He is decidedly one of us.
I would submit that if your tolerance for these people is literal zero, you will never actually convert any of them, and they will raise their children to believe the same shit. You don't actually stop racism by shoving it down the memory hole. You deal with it by dealing with it. And some of that requires being willing to engage with bad people (or go into bad spaces) to actually have those conversations.
If we believe liberal ideals are better we should be willing to go into the ugly spaces and proselytize and trust that these ideals will win people over. If we don't then we should just get it over with and balkanize.
I think the reason for this view that the other side can't be convinced or reasoned with is the fact that the pundits of that side can't be convinced or reasoned with. Tucker and Shapiro will never be convinced or honestly engage in debate, so by extension those with the same beliefs won't either. But the reason those guys won't be convinced is because their livelihood depends on it, as the quote goes. These grifters and pundits will never be convinced, and it is foolish to try it.
But the point is never to convince your opponent. It is to convince the audience. And the idea that the audience here can't be convinced is unproven and seems very dismissive of them as people.
I agree.
A couple years ago I taught an ethics class in a maximum security prison. Once during class a student talked about having personally killed someone, during a unit on drug addiction and regulation; another about having frequented prostitutes that he could tell were strung out on drugs. I wasn't their therapist, or their confessor, I wasn't there to talk about that or make it right. I didn't confront them on it. I just went in to talk to them in a pretty general way about readings, to guide discussions and encourage good questions and discussions, etc., just because I thought it was a good thing to do to for its own sake.
"Told a racist joke, and it was gross" seems not as bad to me as "literally killed someone." I don't know what the standards are supposed to be here, or who we're supposed to think is 'saveable' or not, or when personal morality is supposed to matter or not. I think it's completely schizophrenic if the new left wing morality is that talking to Alex Jones or w/e means we draw Xs over your eyes and you're out forever, but actually killing someone means that we should start thinking about your circumstances and compassion and did you know that Norway has a totally different rehabilitative approach--here, read this semi-longform essay in slate.
The class I taught wasn't about contemporary politics, so I didn't have much occasion to stump. Nor do I have any idea whether prisoners can vote in that state. I will say that I would be happy to talk to any of the students about it if I could, because they're still people, and if they can vote they should do it in a good way. That has nothing to do with all the bad stuff they've done, which is between them and god. I don't think that being seen next to someone means you think everything they've done is okay, and I don't agree with the idea that people who have done really bad things in one respect cannot be worth talking to about something completely different.
With respect to my earlier doubts in this thread about the causal story here--if someone had really good social science data about appearing on Joe Rogan leading to mass violence, I would respect that. But no one does. It's just a bunch of punditry, in the pejorative sense. In absence of strong case, I say: yes, go out, talk to anyone who will listen. I don't give a fk who they are. Can you persuade them to vote thoughtfully, and well? Okay, then you did one good thing.
Bring things back to the theme in the thread title and think about responsible media engagement or whatever. The moral evaluations people do of media figures or platforms, and the political figures that use them (and vice versa) are not going to use the same criteria as the moral evaluations of criminals in prison. As much as I disagree with some of the conclusions being drawn, or the particular standard (only the bad things really count) I don't disagree with holding people like Rogan to a different standard.
This is wrong. Mrmr isn't holding Rogan to a different standard. What mrmr is arguing is that we don't abandon Rogan's audience.
That is who Mrmr is arguing for, not Rogan himself. They are the ones we should seek to rehabilitate.
I agree with the overall point of the parable, there was just that one bit I wanted to comment on, because other posters definitely are holding Rogan to a different standard.
Mrmr never argues that Joe Rogan is reaching out and converting people to the left. Where you got that idea is unknowable.
If you need it spelled out for you: in mrmr's example Joe Rogan is not mrmr, Joe Rogan is the prison.
Your analogy is flawed, as is MrMr's example. Because the people he was working with 1) were already in prison and so facing consequences for their actions/beliefs and are removed from society-at-large, and; 2) were in the program he was running and so were demonstrating a conscious and actionable effort to improve themselves.
I don't know how you can consider comparing Joe Rogan's podcast to our prison system nless you're going to argue that listening to Joe Rogan's podcast is ostensibly a system to enact justice and reform individuals, but is actually a corrupt institution that just abuses, neglects, and hardens/radicalizes those within its system... hmm, maybe you're closer to the mark than I'd initially figured!
I don't think you need to give up on people. I just don't think you need to try to reach them via the worst possible medium: people specifically trying to use you in order to support their continued harming of the people you're trying to reach.
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
There’s an argument to be made that going on Rogan’s show and specifically trying to contradict his alt-right guests is a good idea (reverse the funnel, as it were).
Sanders didn’t do that, as far as I know; he’s just trying to get listeners to vote for him in the election. The election is important and we can debate the relative value of this tactic for Bernie, but none of this is rehabilitative in the sense being discussed on the current page.
I don't think you need to give up on people. I just don't think you need to try to reach them via the worst possible medium: people specifically trying to use you in order to support their continued harming of the people you're trying to reach.
I don't see anybody here saying "well we need to reach out to Tucker Carlson's audience, if only some of our big liberal voices would go onto his program to appeal to them."
Or to phrase it differently: You don't go to a KKK rally to try and convince them of the error of their ways.
Mrmr never argues that Joe Rogan is reaching out and converting people to the left. Where you got that idea is unknowable.
If you need it spelled out for you: in mrmr's example Joe Rogan is not mrmr, Joe Rogan is the prison.
Your analogy is flawed, as is MrMr's example. Because the people he was working with 1) were already in prison and so facing consequences for their actions/beliefs and are removed from society-at-large, and; 2) were in the program he was running and so were demonstrating a conscious and actionable effort to improve themselves.
I don't know how you can consider comparing Joe Rogan's podcast to our prison system nless you're going to argue that listening to Joe Rogan's podcast is ostensibly a system to enact justice and reform individuals, but is actually a corrupt institution that just abuses, neglects, and hardens/radicalizes those within its system... hmm, maybe you're closer to the mark than I'd initially figured!
No, Rogan's show is like a prison in that it has people that need to be reached.
Prisons contain people who need to be reached, Joe Rogan's audience needs to be reached. I can't believe you have this poor a level of reading comprehension, so there must be something going on here when I have to explain simple things like this.
What is it that is happening? I will leave that as an exercise for the reader.
Jesus Christ the idea that you have to lock someone up and remove them from society *before* you try to reach them is flat out insane
I don't think you need to give up on people. I just don't think you need to try to reach them via the worst possible medium: people specifically trying to use you in order to support their continued harming of the people you're trying to reach.
Phrases like "the worst possible medium" are pretty overheated for describing the Joe Rogan Experience, though.
Mrmr never argues that Joe Rogan is reaching out and converting people to the left. Where you got that idea is unknowable.
If you need it spelled out for you: in mrmr's example Joe Rogan is not mrmr, Joe Rogan is the prison.
Your analogy is flawed, as is MrMr's example. Because the people he was working with 1) were already in prison and so facing consequences for their actions/beliefs and are removed from society-at-large, and; 2) were in the program he was running and so were demonstrating a conscious and actionable effort to improve themselves.
I don't know how you can consider comparing Joe Rogan's podcast to our prison system nless you're going to argue that listening to Joe Rogan's podcast is ostensibly a system to enact justice and reform individuals, but is actually a corrupt institution that just abuses, neglects, and hardens/radicalizes those within its system... hmm, maybe you're closer to the mark than I'd initially figured!
No, Rogan's show is like a prison in that it has people that need to be reached.
Prisons contain people who need to be reached, Joe Rogan's audience needs to be reached. I can't believe you have this poor a level of reading comprehension, so there must be something going on here when I have to explain simple things like this.
What is it that is happening? I will leave that as an exercise for the reader.
Jesus Christ the idea that you have to lock someone up and remove them from society *before* you try to reach them is flat out insane
That's not what I said. I was pointing out that there's a difference between prisoners being in a voluntary prison education program, and non-incarcerated people listening to a podcast.
If you're not happy with the disparities between the two being pointed out, then find a better analogy to engage with.
For goodness' sake, a few pages ago you were trying to call us hypocrites because we weren't calling for Democratic candidates to abandon entire social media platforms as well, because both Twitter and Joe Rogan have helped promote alt-right ideology, so they must be exactly the same! Yet I'm the one who's having difficulty distinguishing the differences between things?
There’s an argument to be made that going on Rogan’s show and specifically trying to contradict his alt-right guests is a good idea (reverse the funnel, as it were).
Sanders didn’t do that, as far as I know; he’s just trying to get listeners to vote for him in the election. The election is important and we can debate the relative value of this tactic for Bernie, but none of this is rehabilitative in the sense being discussed on the current page.
Contradicting ideas isnt always just about haranging people. Offering more worthwhile wolrd views is helpful and constructive.
I don't think any of us has any meaningful experience in preventing people from radicalization, though some do have experience in rehabilitating those who have been radicalized.
Therefore, the argument that Bernie should have / should not have directly rebuked Joe Rogan's other guests and ideologies during the interview will continue to be unresolved and clouded by ignorance. Prove me wrong by talking about your experiences in outreach to pre-radicalized but still extremely vulnerable and right leaning people and saying what you've noticed has worked. Your peripheral experience with news about people like Alex Jones doesn't count and is a marker for way too superficial of an experience. Interventions with people in jail are also kind of outside the target demographic window.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
The fact that not a single person is willing to actually put in the legwork and pull videos of Rogan facing down a guest with somewhat bad viewpoints is quite interesting.
I had almost zero opinion about this podcast and still kinda do, all I've seen are out of context clips. But the more and more I see of him, the more he reminds me of the people that have based their entire political philosophy on "douche/turd sandwich" even after the original creators of said ideology have abandoned it and apologized for it.
+3
Options
WhiteZinfandelYour insidesLet me show you themRegistered Userregular
I vaguely recall listening to (at least part of) a Shapiro interview and nothing abhorrent really came up for Rogan to push back against. I only listened to about 30 seconds of the Candace Owens episode before deciding I really didn't give a shit what she had to say based on past experiences. Periodically it has come up on subsequent episodes and Joe+others make it sound like he did push back when she said particularly dumb things.
I vaguely recall listening to (at least part of) a Shapiro interview and nothing abhorrent really came up for Rogan to push back against. I only listened to about 30 seconds of the Candace Owens episode before deciding I really didn't give a shit what she had to say based on past experiences. Periodically it has come up on subsequent episodes and Joe+others make it sound like he did push back when she said particularly dumb things.
Okay but here's the thing: Even if Ben Shapiro didn't say anything particularly egregious on the podcast when he was on Joe Rogan's show... he was on Joe Rogan's show.
If someone who listens to that episode goes, "Hmm, I would like to hear more from this Ben Shapiro fellow!" then go and start drinking from the poisoned well that is Ben Shapiro's views, it's because Joe Rogan introduced that listener to Ben Shapiro!
God I feel like this conversation has happened a million times before, about people like Jordan Peterson, who starts talking about uncontroversial self-help malarkey to get you comfortable with him as an authority and then oh look, here's some racist misogyny he would like you to buy into as well!
1. We should not provide platforms for racists.
2. We should not help legitimice platforms where racists appear.
Now, because of how media works, the second gets difficult, and even downright impossible, because they often insist on the first.
But we should still try to call out people if/when possible for not trying enough.
Where Joe Rogan falls on this, i can't really say as i have not listened to him, but if the best defense is "well he invites anyone and has no real opinions of his own", than i would say that bringing him more listeners and signal boosting him is a bad thing.
I vaguely recall listening to (at least part of) a Shapiro interview and nothing abhorrent really came up for Rogan to push back against. I only listened to about 30 seconds of the Candace Owens episode before deciding I really didn't give a shit what she had to say based on past experiences. Periodically it has come up on subsequent episodes and Joe+others make it sound like he did push back when she said particularly dumb things.
Okay but here's the thing: Even if Ben Shapiro didn't say anything particularly egregious on the podcast when he was on Joe Rogan's show... he was on Joe Rogan's show.
If someone who listens to that episode goes, "Hmm, I would like to hear more from this Ben Shapiro fellow!" then go and start drinking from the poisoned well that is Ben Shapiro's views, it's because Joe Rogan introduced that listener to Ben Shapiro!
God I feel like this conversation has happened a million times before, about people like Jordan Peterson, who starts talking about uncontroversial self-help malarkey to get you comfortable with him as an authority and then oh look, here's some racist misogyny he would like you to buy into as well!
Well, people in this thread are listening to Joe Rogan's podcasts more to be informed enough to participate, so we've got some sort of sample to test that theory. Do you think anybody here who has done that is more susceptible to Ben Shapiro's views? Why or why not?
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Posts
MSNBC ain't exactly a paragon.
You're using the present tense in "says" there but you're using a clip of a joke that looks like it's 6+ years old. I'd bet dollars to donuts that if he was asked about that clip today, he'd admit it was a dumb thing to say.
Hearing more liberalism *once* followed by what?
By that definition you're defending any person when you're disagreeing with the accusation that they are literally baby Hitler.
i mean I suppose it's true or whatever but it makes your point pretty meaningless. Yeah sure we're all defending Rogan by not agreeing with every accusation you throw at him. You caught us. Obviously Styro didn't mean that no one was defending Rogan's actual views and actions, despite that being the generally understood meaning of that word, he meant no one disagreed with your specific framing of the issue.
Well the idea is you keep using the platform, not put one of those human boat shoes from Pod on there once and call it a day
Except that you're not the one who gets to decide if you get to keep using the platform. Joe Rogan is.
And as we know hes willing to have basically anyone with some draw on. Youve seen the list of leftists hes had. If all of the liberal machine cant produce some names to get on board youve got a bigger problem than Sanders on Rogan
I think the reason for this view that the other side can't be convinced or reasoned with is the fact that the pundits of that side can't be convinced or reasoned with. Tucker and Shapiro will never be convinced or honestly engage in debate, so by extension those with the same beliefs won't either. But the reason those guys won't be convinced is because their livelihood depends on it, as the quote goes. These grifters and pundits will never be convinced, and it is foolish to try it.
But the point is never to convince your opponent. It is to convince the audience. And the idea that the audience here can't be convinced is unproven and seems very dismissive of them as people.
I don't see why it's a "problem" that the bigger names who are leftist don't feel that lending credibility to Joe Rogan is worth the "exposure" his platform would give them?
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
I agree.
A couple years ago I taught an ethics class in a maximum security prison. Once during class a student talked about having personally killed someone, during a unit on drug addiction and regulation; another about having frequented prostitutes that he could tell were strung out on drugs. I wasn't their therapist, or their confessor, I wasn't there to talk about that or make it right. I didn't confront them on it. I just went in to talk to them in a pretty general way about readings, to guide discussions and encourage good questions and discussions, etc., just because I thought it was a good thing to do to for its own sake.
"Told a racist joke, and it was gross" seems not as bad to me as "literally killed someone." I don't know what the standards are supposed to be here, or who we're supposed to think is 'saveable' or not, or when personal morality is supposed to matter or not. I think it's completely schizophrenic if the new left wing morality is that talking to Alex Jones or w/e means we draw Xs over your eyes and you're out forever, but actually killing someone means that we should start thinking about your circumstances and compassion and did you know that Norway has a totally different rehabilitative approach--here, read this semi-longform essay in slate.
The class I taught wasn't about contemporary politics, so I didn't have much occasion to stump. Nor do I have any idea whether prisoners can vote in that state. I will say that I would be happy to talk to any of the students about it if I could, because they're still people, and if they can vote they should do it in a good way. That has nothing to do with all the bad stuff they've done, which is between them and god. I don't think that being seen next to someone means you think everything they've done is okay, and I don't agree with the idea that people who have done really bad things in one respect cannot be worth talking to about something completely different.
With respect to my earlier doubts in this thread about the causal story here--if someone had really good social science data about appearing on Joe Rogan leading to mass violence, I would respect that. But no one does. It's just a bunch of punditry, in the pejorative sense. In absence of strong case, I say: yes, go out, talk to anyone who will listen. I don't give a fk who they are. Can you persuade them to vote thoughtfully, and well? Okay, then you did one good thing.
Bring things back to the theme in the thread title and think about responsible media engagement or whatever. The moral evaluations people do of media figures or platforms, and the political figures that use them (and vice versa) are not going to use the same criteria as the moral evaluations of criminals in prison. As much as I disagree with some of the conclusions being drawn, or the particular standard (only the bad things really count) I don't disagree with holding people like Rogan to a different standard.
It's important for liberals to reach out to conservatives, I agree. Where I disagree is doing it in places where traction is impossible to get and you're not going to get it from Rogan. He's not interested, as Hedgie's article showed it'd hurt his bank account and he refuses to accept the responsibility of being a media figure.
People have given several examples in this thread, and the last. Since you're a veteran here it's puzzling why you're ignoring the history of the controversial people Rogan's had on his show, as though they have been harmless or that he's been rehabilitating anybody when his format is about isolating those elements from one another. You're not going to see Bernie Sanders debate Ben Shapiro on his podcast.
Here are some obvious examples of people he's befriended and who he view them as harmless pranksters. There are others, but we'll stick with these two.
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/03/26/521545788/conspiracy-theorist-alex-jones-apologizes-for-promoting-pizzagate
Nearly got people killed by promoting Pizzagate. We've had thread about this subject.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2019/07/11/another-twist-sandy-hook-families-defamation-case-against-alex-jones/oZCW1SYInxYiQ5Y4DDh6cJ/story.html
Fostered an atmosphere where his fans harassed Sandy Hook victims families.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/nov/22/proud-boys-founder-gavin-mcinnes-quits-far-right-group
Hate group founder who quit when the FBI started knocking on his door when his group violently attacked people.
How Rogan reacted to these incidents and the people responsible for it is reprehensible, which impacts how he his viewers see them and speaks of how Rogan wants to be seen - this is a bind for people on the left and candidates who shouldn't want to go on a podcast who normalises those activities, which they would be by not confronting Rogan about this. Being mercenary I get, where I draw the line is abetting in normalising figures like Alex Jones and Gavin McInnes. Any candidate who relies on Rogan as a lifeboat is already on life support, and this is going to add another disadvantage if they somehow becomes the nominee which will decrease turnout from liberals. This is why Elisabeth Warren won't get within ten blocks of Joe Rogan.
I, too, would like to see media data on both sides, you disagreeing with liberals on this subject isn't evidence the pro-Rogan side is right. Where is that hard data that liberals and leftists going on Rogan are doing what is being claimed?
Talking to someone is not the same as convincing them, if that was true we wouldn't need Rogan's influence to impact those people. Not every Republican is secretly a leftist waiting to break out, the ideology we're fighting against includes modern Nazis, mega conservative propaganda channels like Fox News and throwing kids in cages. Rogan isn't doing anything about any of those subjects, aside from getting rich off it. That's why it's pointless for candidates and people on the left to go on there. You're thinking of ContraPoints, who has a history of breaking through the boundaries and who bothers to spent more than five seconds researching what she's doing. Rogan is no ContraPoints.
This is disingenuous. Again, McInnes has been on Rogan's show twice: once in 2015, when the only thing he'd done was found and then get kicked out of Vice Magazine, and once in Feb 2017. The Proud Boys were formed in September 2016, and to that point the only notable thing they'd done was scuffle with some Antifa protestors outside of NYU. As best I can tell it didn't even make the mainstream local news outlets in NYC - wiki links Gothamist and Village Voice for its sources on the incident - and Rogan lives in LA. It seems vastly more likely to me that McInnes was brought on to talk about Vice and drugs - which is, like extremely on-brand for Rogan - than because of his fascist leanings, which Rogan likely wasn't even aware of. Again, I pay pretty close attention to this shit, and I don't think I'd have been aware of it in February 2017, because I'm only on Twitter like once a week.
If you need it spelled out for you: in mrmr's example Joe Rogan is not mrmr, Joe Rogan is the prison.
The data is who wins the primary, then who wins the election.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
By 2017 any excuse Rogan had for excusing McInnes went out the door, of course it's not like he couldn't keep up with McInnes in the news or through his friends in Hollywood or on Google. Where he lives isn't relevant in the age of the internet. Rogan isn't a person who's generally aware of anything outside of surface level of his guests at the best of times. Look at this:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/gavin-mcinnes-whines-his-fellow-rich-neighbors-dont-like-him
Rogan knew he had a podcast and about the Proud Boys, yet he wouldn't bother to simply listen to what those podcasts had to say to raise any alarms. Rogan isn't like you or me, he had a lot more investment in those scenes being a Hollywood celebrity and being an avid fan of Info Wars.
But let's say you're right, it's possible McInness was outside of Rogan's circle to notice - which is a plausible explanation.
How do you explain Alex Jones?
Leftists and liberals going Rogan hinges on this being true, this is why Bernie Sanders is on Rogan's program: to convert that audience.
Nope. The position was that Bernie going on Rogan would be a factor in letting him or boosting his numbers, being the nominee proves nothing aside from he can win the nomination. The devil is in the details, Paladin.
Which is an insightful connection if you spend sometime thinking about it.
This is wrong. Mrmr isn't holding Rogan to a different standard. What mrmr is arguing is that we don't abandon Rogan's audience.
That is who Mrmr is arguing for, not Rogan himself. They are the ones we should seek to rehabilitate.
I think the fastest way to delegitimize Alex Jones is to let as many people as possible hear him rant about reptiloid demons from Mars who are engaging in mass mind control via chemtrails using toxins derived from the Hale-Bopp comet or whatever the fuck.
I also don't think Jones really had anything to do with people believing that Sandy Hook was a false flag. I think people believed that Sandy Hook was a false flag (these accusations happen literally any time a shooting makes the news within seconds of the article being posted; I remember idiots at my middle school saying the same shit after Columbine) and then started listening to Jones.
But you will also end with people who believe him, and go shoot up a pizza parlor.
I agree with the overall point of the parable, there was just that one bit I wanted to comment on, because other posters definitely are holding Rogan to a different standard.
Your analogy is flawed, as is MrMr's example. Because the people he was working with 1) were already in prison and so facing consequences for their actions/beliefs and are removed from society-at-large, and; 2) were in the program he was running and so were demonstrating a conscious and actionable effort to improve themselves.
I don't know how you can consider comparing Joe Rogan's podcast to our prison system nless you're going to argue that listening to Joe Rogan's podcast is ostensibly a system to enact justice and reform individuals, but is actually a corrupt institution that just abuses, neglects, and hardens/radicalizes those within its system... hmm, maybe you're closer to the mark than I'd initially figured!
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Sanders didn’t do that, as far as I know; he’s just trying to get listeners to vote for him in the election. The election is important and we can debate the relative value of this tactic for Bernie, but none of this is rehabilitative in the sense being discussed on the current page.
I don't see anybody here saying "well we need to reach out to Tucker Carlson's audience, if only some of our big liberal voices would go onto his program to appeal to them."
Or to phrase it differently: You don't go to a KKK rally to try and convince them of the error of their ways.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
No, Rogan's show is like a prison in that it has people that need to be reached.
Prisons contain people who need to be reached, Joe Rogan's audience needs to be reached. I can't believe you have this poor a level of reading comprehension, so there must be something going on here when I have to explain simple things like this.
What is it that is happening? I will leave that as an exercise for the reader.
Jesus Christ the idea that you have to lock someone up and remove them from society *before* you try to reach them is flat out insane
Phrases like "the worst possible medium" are pretty overheated for describing the Joe Rogan Experience, though.
That's not what I said. I was pointing out that there's a difference between prisoners being in a voluntary prison education program, and non-incarcerated people listening to a podcast.
If you're not happy with the disparities between the two being pointed out, then find a better analogy to engage with.
For goodness' sake, a few pages ago you were trying to call us hypocrites because we weren't calling for Democratic candidates to abandon entire social media platforms as well, because both Twitter and Joe Rogan have helped promote alt-right ideology, so they must be exactly the same! Yet I'm the one who's having difficulty distinguishing the differences between things?
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Has anyone here listened to Rogan's interviews of people like Candace Owens, Shapiro, Milo, and Jones?
If so can they provide the thread with the times Rogan pushed back on these people to their faces for their abhorrent views?
Because that would certainly change my opinion of this entire topic. This shouldn't be very hard.
Contradicting ideas isnt always just about haranging people. Offering more worthwhile wolrd views is helpful and constructive.
Therefore, the argument that Bernie should have / should not have directly rebuked Joe Rogan's other guests and ideologies during the interview will continue to be unresolved and clouded by ignorance. Prove me wrong by talking about your experiences in outreach to pre-radicalized but still extremely vulnerable and right leaning people and saying what you've noticed has worked. Your peripheral experience with news about people like Alex Jones doesn't count and is a marker for way too superficial of an experience. Interventions with people in jail are also kind of outside the target demographic window.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I’m more curious why you have an already cemented opinion on the matter without having seen them yourselves.
Joe Rogan is not known for normally pushing back on the viewpoints expressed by his guests.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
I had almost zero opinion about this podcast and still kinda do, all I've seen are out of context clips. But the more and more I see of him, the more he reminds me of the people that have based their entire political philosophy on "douche/turd sandwich" even after the original creators of said ideology have abandoned it and apologized for it.
Okay but here's the thing: Even if Ben Shapiro didn't say anything particularly egregious on the podcast when he was on Joe Rogan's show... he was on Joe Rogan's show.
If someone who listens to that episode goes, "Hmm, I would like to hear more from this Ben Shapiro fellow!" then go and start drinking from the poisoned well that is Ben Shapiro's views, it's because Joe Rogan introduced that listener to Ben Shapiro!
God I feel like this conversation has happened a million times before, about people like Jordan Peterson, who starts talking about uncontroversial self-help malarkey to get you comfortable with him as an authority and then oh look, here's some racist misogyny he would like you to buy into as well!
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
2. We should not help legitimice platforms where racists appear.
Now, because of how media works, the second gets difficult, and even downright impossible, because they often insist on the first.
But we should still try to call out people if/when possible for not trying enough.
Where Joe Rogan falls on this, i can't really say as i have not listened to him, but if the best defense is "well he invites anyone and has no real opinions of his own", than i would say that bringing him more listeners and signal boosting him is a bad thing.
Well, people in this thread are listening to Joe Rogan's podcasts more to be informed enough to participate, so we've got some sort of sample to test that theory. Do you think anybody here who has done that is more susceptible to Ben Shapiro's views? Why or why not?
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.