[
I feel like there's this real disconnect in liberalism where racism is this thing they believe basically everyone is capable of acting on and most of us will at some point and "you are a racist, you always have been, and the only appropriate way to engage with you is berating"
If you're actually trying to convince someone of the error of their ways, you talk about the view they expressed as being racist, not calling them racist. But that's for a nuanced conversation.
Don't expect a polite, nuanced conversation to happen in response to people being loudly bigoted in public.
What a world we live in, where conservatives spout radicalizing rhetoric, and it radicalizes people.
And if liberals call them out on their radicalizing rhetoric, it also radicalizes people... the same direction that the conservative rhetoric does.
Hey, here's a question for you: If calling people Nazis is going to turn people into xenophobic assholes somehow, where is the concern trolling about Fox News, et al. labeling centrist Democrats like Biden "socialists" turning all Democratic supporters into radical leftists?
Republicans calling everything socialist has likely aided the cause of socialism in the US by letting us lay claim to basically any serious social program and has made recruitment easier by presenting socialism as just the thing that isnt what conservatives do.
So......
So the rise in openly racist people hinges on them refusing to recognize their own behavior as racist, and more people openly embracing their racists beliefs as a consequence of having an openly racist president doesn't mean these people have suddenly become more racist, just that they're being more open about the beliefs they already quietly held.
Or to put it another way:
A rise is socialist beliefs is because more people are finding them appealing.
The same goes for racist and bigoted views: people are finding them appealing.
It's nothing new really, it's same old trick of conservative appropriation of liberal terminology. People expressing bigoted views are now being "discriminated against for being conservative." The reason people find this narrative appealing is because they share those bigoted views, and this reassures them that they aren't actually bigots, the real bigots are the ones who won't tolerate their bigotry.
"They were racist all along" sounds like a wonderful excuse to treat people like they are less than you and not feel bad about it.
You don't think I feel bad about living in a systemically racist society?
I think you shouldn't use, much less have to use, post-hoc excuses to justify your behavior.
To say racism makes your skin crawl and you want nothing to do with anyone who partakes in it is fine. Maybe not the epitome of tolerance, but I don't think anyone here would blame you for feeling that way.
To say that it's okay to treat racists with nothing but contempt and disdain, and anyone that is turned off by that is also a racist, just not ready to admit it, not only doesn't really line up with how people work, it sets a very dangerous precedent to treat anyone that disagrees with you as racist.
And that is not the logic of someone dedicated to social equality. It's the logic of a fanatic.
[
I feel like there's this real disconnect in liberalism where racism is this thing they believe basically everyone is capable of acting on and most of us will at some point and "you are a racist, you always have been, and the only appropriate way to engage with you is berating"
If you're actually trying to convince someone of the error of their ways, you talk about the view they expressed as being racist, not calling them racist. But that's for a nuanced conversation.
Don't expect a polite, nuanced conversation to happen in response to people being loudly bigoted in public.
What a world we live in, where conservatives spout radicalizing rhetoric, and it radicalizes people.
And if liberals call them out on their radicalizing rhetoric, it also radicalizes people... the same direction that the conservative rhetoric does.
This is a conservative strategy. Say something outrageous in a non-outrageous way, wait for someone to get justifiably incensed about it, then be all "oh my look at the intolerant left being all shouty!" Just shouting "you're a nazi!" at someone isn't going to make their fans change their mind. Explaining things in detail in a long form conversation probably has a better chance.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't oppose nazis every step of the way and protest against them etc etc, but if you go on Rogan's show and yell YOU'RE A NAZI at him it probably isn't going to help.
+6
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
edited August 2019
Nobody on the right has ever said, “Hey, maybe our racism and sexism and homophobia and transphobia and evangelical purism and support for bullying and online harassment is turning off voters in the middle, maybe we should be less hateful and mean”
The left handwrings over whether calling out reprehensible shit will drive low info, kinda terrible voters into the arms of the other side, a worry reinforced by right wingers going “I didn’t choose to be a Nazi until the left said Nazis were bad, so rude, but also [insert Nazi policy here]”
Less than a year ago we discovered that Trump and the GOP had pushed away so many people that we had higher numbers of Democratic votes than we’ve had in decades
Before that, Trump lost by 3 million votes
For all the whining and handwringing, I think the insanity and cruelty on the right is speaking louder than “those mean SJWs”
People naturally dislike conflict and it upsets them to see the status quo criticized, but if we’re not going to say things like “This obvious Nazi is a Nazi, stop working with him, stop giving him a platform” then we’re just accepting the status quo and might as well give up and vote Republican
In reality we’re winning hearts and minds (turning that into power through the fucked up, gerrymandered American system of government is another issue entirely) and the other side has been driving the middle to the left since at least Bush.
Sure, people in internet arguments can always be a little nicer, but this idea that the left standing up for humanity is politically unwise is just gaslighting from those who would prefer no one stand up for humanity.
In reality we’re winning hearts and minds (turning that into power through the fucked up, gerrymandered American system of government is another issue entirely) and the other side has been driving the middle to the left since at least Bush.
Sure, people in internet arguments can always be a little nicer, but this idea that the left standing up for humanity is politically unwise is just gaslighting from those who would prefer no one stand up for humanity.
I don't think anyone is saying don't be an advocate for people or don't to stand up for humanity... this is a little much.
To test the hypothesis that Bernie is leading so many leftests to Joe Rogan like lambs to the slaughter, I decided to check out if his Youtube views went up after the Sanders interview.
Luckly, there was a perfect video for doing this. One day after Bernie, Joe had Brendan Schaub on his show. Brendan is a podcaster/comedian that used to be an MMA fighter.
The last time Brendan was on Joe's podcast was a scant 2 months ago, and his appearance generated 2.5 million views.
The recent appearance has thus far generated 1.8 million views. Now it's possible that over the next month or two an extra million or more views will come in but that is not the usual pattern for Youtube views.
Early findings show that Bernie's effect on Joe's lasting audience is wildly exaggerated.
Democrats should go on whatever platforms they can and scream and shout about what's happening in the country and how they can help.
Use whatever platform / method you can to be as loud and ubiquitous as possible.
Liberal / democratic ideals are popular but if the only place a teenager or young adult hears them is if they subscribe to pod save America or come here then what's the Fucking point.
You NEED to go on Rogan or pew die pie or whatever the fuck to tell people what you stand for and what you will do to help them.
How someone can take the lesson from 2016 as "don't talk to non-democrats, they're a lost cause" is insanity.
If Rogan hates trans people go on his show and tell him he's wrong and here's why...
You achieve nothing whatsoever by refusing to interact.
As a bonus you keep shrinking the tent and sooner or later it's just you inside.
The issue isn't "dont talk to non-democrats," the issue is "don't talk on platforms that make their money either by advocating for, or otherwise abetting, hate speech."
Democrats should go on whatever platforms they can and scream and shout about what's happening in the country and how they can help.
Use whatever platform / method you can to be as loud and ubiquitous as possible.
Liberal / democratic ideals are popular but if the only place a teenager or young adult hears them is if they subscribe to pod save America or come here then what's the Fucking point.
You NEED to go on Rogan or pew die pie or whatever the fuck to tell people what you stand for and what you will do to help them.
How someone can take the lesson from 2016 as "don't talk to non-democrats, they're a lost cause" is insanity.
If Rogan hates trans people go on his show and tell him he's wrong and here's why...
You achieve nothing whatsoever by refusing to interact.
As a bonus you keep shrinking the tent and sooner or later it's just you inside.
The issue isn't "dont talk to non-democrats," the issue is "don't talk on platforms* that make their money either by advocating for, or otherwise abetting, hate speech."
*Except for this long list of the other platforms that do that, which are used every day. They don't count.
Democrats should go on whatever platforms they can and scream and shout about what's happening in the country and how they can help.
Use whatever platform / method you can to be as loud and ubiquitous as possible.
Liberal / democratic ideals are popular but if the only place a teenager or young adult hears them is if they subscribe to pod save America or come here then what's the Fucking point.
You NEED to go on Rogan or pew die pie or whatever the fuck to tell people what you stand for and what you will do to help them.
How someone can take the lesson from 2016 as "don't talk to non-democrats, they're a lost cause" is insanity.
If Rogan hates trans people go on his show and tell him he's wrong and here's why...
You achieve nothing whatsoever by refusing to interact.
As a bonus you keep shrinking the tent and sooner or later it's just you inside.
The issue isn't "dont talk to non-democrats," the issue is "don't talk on platforms that make their money either by advocating for, or otherwise abetting, hate speech."
I don't agree.
If liberals can get on then that changes what that platform does.
When liberals don't go on then it becomes exclusively a place for a single bad message which is the complete opposite of what we want.
Refusing to engage does not make Rogan or the people watching go away it just takes away another channel for a liberal message to get out.
Nobody on the right has ever said, “Hey, maybe our racism and sexism and homophobia and transphobia and evangelical purism and support for bullying and online harassment is turning off voters in the middle, maybe we should be less hateful and mean”
Do I need to pull out the Atwater quote about starting with the n word but having to move to dog-whistles like "states rights" and "forced busing"?
I think some people are uncomfortable with giving the hates-the-SJWs-but-wants-healthcare voting bloc any more power in the left (including everything left of center here) than it already has.
Why not try to win voters somewhere they're not going to be constantly exposed to a narrative of social justice as a negative, even if they do join our side? JRE isn't the only game in town.
I think some people are uncomfortable with giving the hates-the-SJWs-but-wants-healthcare voting bloc any more power in the left (including everything left of center here) than it already has.
Why not try to win voters somewhere they're not going to be constantly exposed to a narrative of social justice as a negative, even if they do join our side? JRE isn't the only game in town.
What is another big platform to go on that doesn't also have issues with racism, homophobia, transphobia, etc.?
+2
Options
ceresWhen the last moon is cast over the last star of morningAnd the future has past without even a last desperate warningRegistered User, Moderatormod
edited August 2019
"May as well round up the Jews" as a tongue-in-cheek remark is abhorrent, stop doing that shit.
ceres on
And it seems like all is dying, and would leave the world to mourn
I think some people are uncomfortable with giving the hates-the-SJWs-but-wants-healthcare voting bloc any more power in the left (including everything left of center here) than it already has.
Why not try to win voters somewhere they're not going to be constantly exposed to a narrative of social justice as a negative, even if they do join our side? JRE isn't the only game in town.
Considering politicians have to constantly visit and lobby different special interest groups, I feel like we are going to see lots more of this. Bernie (and Obama previously) were pretty ahead of the curve in terms of engaging online. I view Bernie doing this as the same as going to talk to the Union Reps or the Breakfast Club For Rich Socially Progressive Karens. Its a fundamental part of politics to engage with different cohorts even if their monolithic moral and ethical status are complicated.
I'm super happy to see empirical viewing data on Joe Rogan. Good job Abbalah!
We can argue for a long time about whether or not his show is a gateway (i am not convinced) but he certainly does have a lot of very popular videos with ethically gross people. So I will definitely agree that Joe Rogan hosts morally bankrupt people like Shapiro and Peterson. But one thing Shapiro and Peterson and Rogan do is provide purpose and acknowledgement to their listeners. So if Bernie (and other populists) want to get their votes, they go and acknowledge them. I'm also fairly sure this was Bernie's campaign managers idea. I doubt Bernie had any idea who Joe Rogan was prior.
I agree and think rather than being a gateway, the fact that these groups are indirectly associated with a famous person probably makes them feel important or relevant.
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.
0
Options
MonwynApathy's a tragedy, and boredom is a crime.A little bit of everything, all of the time.Registered Userregular
Nobody on the right has ever said, “Hey, maybe our racism and sexism and homophobia and transphobia and evangelical purism and support for bullying and online harassment is turning off voters in the middle, maybe we should be less hateful and mean”
Yes they absolutely have. They've been doing it since like 2004. It was one of Michael Steele's big pushes post-2008 at the latest. If nothing else they are at desperate pains to about being seen as racist, because they know it's disqualifying. That's literally the basis of Atwater's strategy. They just get drowned out by the unending shrieks issuing forth from the Eye of Terror.
I think some people are uncomfortable with giving the hates-the-SJWs-but-wants-healthcare voting bloc any more power in the left (including everything left of center here) than it already has.
Why not try to win voters somewhere they're not going to be constantly exposed to a narrative of social justice as a negative, even if they do join our side? JRE isn't the only game in town.
The idea is you get them in the door on heakthcare and then when theyre not getting all their social policy information from shitty people you win them over on other issues as well.
To test the hypothesis that Bernie is leading so many leftests to Joe Rogan like lambs to the slaughter, I decided to check out if his Youtube views went up after the Sanders interview.
Luckly, there was a perfect video for doing this. One day after Bernie, Joe had Brendan Schaub on his show. Brendan is a podcaster/comedian that used to be an MMA fighter.
The last time Brendan was on Joe's podcast was a scant 2 months ago, and his appearance generated 2.5 million views.
The recent appearance has thus far generated 1.8 million views. Now it's possible that over the next month or two an extra million or more views will come in but that is not the usual pattern for Youtube views.
Early findings show that Bernie's effect on Joe's lasting audience is wildly exaggerated.
If that's the conclusion you want to draw, go nuts. But again: If Rogan's effect on Sanders' audience is negligible, then Sanders' effect on Rogan's audience is also negligible and the idea that anything was gained for the left by going on the show is undercut, unless you can make the argument that exposure to Sanders was specifically much more effective at flipping Rogan fans than exposure to Rogan was at flipping Sanders fans.
You cannot simultaneously argue that 1)there was no harm from Sanders going on Rogan's show because people tuning in for one interview aren't converted into habitual supporters/won't listen to other content and also that 2)it's good and important for the left to go onto platforms like the JRE in order to win converts who will seek out their other content.
Either audiences are easy to convert in this context, in which case going on Rogan was a bad idea because the cost of converting some of his audience into Bernie Sanders supporters was putting a proportional amount of your own much larger audience into the alt-right recruitment pipeline
or audiences are hard to convert and don't stick around, in which case going on Rogan was a bad idea because you're just wasting time on an ineffective platform for no gain whilst legitimizing a dude who keeps humanizing far-right bigots in front of large crowds.
The argument for going on the show being a good recruitment strategy for the left requires you to try and have it both ways, and you can't.
+7
Options
No-QuarterNothing To FearBut Fear ItselfRegistered Userregular
I asked a few pages ago and I'll ask again, and I'll keep asking it till I get a response.
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.
I’m more curious why you have an already cemented opinion on the matter without having seen them yourselves.
So, to clarify, you don't have any video of him pushing back on these people which is what I was asking for.
I already listed an example.
Could you link it for me? On phone and having trouble finding it.
Thanks
https://youtube.com/watch?v=5PxPOz_SZC8
In the most recent Eddie Bravo interview, Eddie started in on flat-earth nonsense and Joe pushed back on it. The whole exchange starts around 1:23 and they switch subjects around 1:35.
Thank you for responding!
I didn't know who Eddie Bravo was, I had to look him up. Rogan does indeed hit back at him, but ffs, it's flat-earthism. It's not harmless by any extent, but that's the lowest of hanging fruit
If the best we can find of Rogan "pushing back" is this, then that's a terrible look for Rogan.
To test the hypothesis that Bernie is leading so many leftests to Joe Rogan like lambs to the slaughter, I decided to check out if his Youtube views went up after the Sanders interview.
Luckly, there was a perfect video for doing this. One day after Bernie, Joe had Brendan Schaub on his show. Brendan is a podcaster/comedian that used to be an MMA fighter.
The last time Brendan was on Joe's podcast was a scant 2 months ago, and his appearance generated 2.5 million views.
The recent appearance has thus far generated 1.8 million views. Now it's possible that over the next month or two an extra million or more views will come in but that is not the usual pattern for Youtube views.
Early findings show that Bernie's effect on Joe's lasting audience is wildly exaggerated.
If that's the conclusion you want to draw, go nuts. But again: If Rogan's effect on Sanders' audience is negligible, then Sanders' effect on Rogan's audience is also negligible and the idea that anything was gained for the left by going on the show is undercut, unless you can make the argument that exposure to Sanders was specifically much more effective at flipping Rogan fans than exposure to Rogan was at flipping Sanders fans.
You cannot simultaneously argue that 1)there was no harm from Sanders going on Rogan's show because people tuning in for one interview aren't converted into habitual supporters/won't listen to other content and also that 2)it's good and important for the left to go onto platforms like the JRE in order to win converts who will seek out their other content.
Either audiences are easy to convert in this context, in which case going on Rogan was a bad idea because the cost of converting some of his audience into Bernie Sanders supporters was putting a proportional amount of your own much larger audience into the alt-right recruitment pipeline
or audiences are hard to convert and don't stick around, in which case going on Rogan was a bad idea because you're just wasting time on an ineffective platform for no gain whilst legitimizing a dude who keeps humanizing far-right bigots in front of large crowds.
The argument for going on the show being a good recruitment strategy for the left requires you to try and have it both ways, and you can't.
If people honestly believe that every argument is equally convincing regardless of content or presentation, it goes a long way to explaining why they're so afraid to engage with those they disagree with, less the words from their forked tongue worms their way into their souls.
To test the hypothesis that Bernie is leading so many leftests to Joe Rogan like lambs to the slaughter, I decided to check out if his Youtube views went up after the Sanders interview.
Luckly, there was a perfect video for doing this. One day after Bernie, Joe had Brendan Schaub on his show. Brendan is a podcaster/comedian that used to be an MMA fighter.
The last time Brendan was on Joe's podcast was a scant 2 months ago, and his appearance generated 2.5 million views.
The recent appearance has thus far generated 1.8 million views. Now it's possible that over the next month or two an extra million or more views will come in but that is not the usual pattern for Youtube views.
Early findings show that Bernie's effect on Joe's lasting audience is wildly exaggerated.
If that's the conclusion you want to draw, go nuts. But again: If Rogan's effect on Sanders' audience is negligible, then Sanders' effect on Rogan's audience is also negligible and the idea that anything was gained for the left by going on the show is undercut, unless you can make the argument that exposure to Sanders was specifically much more effective at flipping Rogan fans than exposure to Rogan was at flipping Sanders fans.
You cannot simultaneously argue that 1)there was no harm from Sanders going on Rogan's show because people tuning in for one interview aren't converted into habitual supporters/won't listen to other content and also that 2)it's good and important for the left to go onto platforms like the JRE in order to win converts who will seek out their other content.
Either audiences are easy to convert in this context, in which case going on Rogan was a bad idea because the cost of converting some of his audience into Bernie Sanders supporters was putting a proportional amount of your own much larger audience into the alt-right recruitment pipeline
or audiences are hard to convert and don't stick around, in which case going on Rogan was a bad idea because you're just wasting time on an ineffective platform for no gain whilst legitimizing a dude who keeps humanizing far-right bigots in front of large crowds.
The argument for going on the show being a good recruitment strategy for the left requires you to try and have it both ways, and you can't.
The underlined does not follow.
In order for Joe Rogan's worst guests to have an impact on Bernie's followers, Bernie's followers have to stick around and listen to Joe Rogan's worst guests. They don't reach forward through time and space and convince people who watch content they aren't a part of.
On the other hand, every habitual Joe Rogan listener has now listened to Bernie.
You don't have to "have it both ways" to think this is a win for Bernie.
To test the hypothesis that Bernie is leading so many leftests to Joe Rogan like lambs to the slaughter, I decided to check out if his Youtube views went up after the Sanders interview.
Luckly, there was a perfect video for doing this. One day after Bernie, Joe had Brendan Schaub on his show. Brendan is a podcaster/comedian that used to be an MMA fighter.
The last time Brendan was on Joe's podcast was a scant 2 months ago, and his appearance generated 2.5 million views.
The recent appearance has thus far generated 1.8 million views. Now it's possible that over the next month or two an extra million or more views will come in but that is not the usual pattern for Youtube views.
Early findings show that Bernie's effect on Joe's lasting audience is wildly exaggerated.
If that's the conclusion you want to draw, go nuts. But again: If Rogan's effect on Sanders' audience is negligible, then Sanders' effect on Rogan's audience is also negligible and the idea that anything was gained for the left by going on the show is undercut, unless you can make the argument that exposure to Sanders was specifically much more effective at flipping Rogan fans than exposure to Rogan was at flipping Sanders fans.
You cannot simultaneously argue that 1)there was no harm from Sanders going on Rogan's show because people tuning in for one interview aren't converted into habitual supporters/won't listen to other content and also that 2)it's good and important for the left to go onto platforms like the JRE in order to win converts who will seek out their other content.
Either audiences are easy to convert in this context, in which case going on Rogan was a bad idea because the cost of converting some of his audience into Bernie Sanders supporters was putting a proportional amount of your own much larger audience into the alt-right recruitment pipeline
or audiences are hard to convert and don't stick around, in which case going on Rogan was a bad idea because you're just wasting time on an ineffective platform for no gain whilst legitimizing a dude who keeps humanizing far-right bigots in front of large crowds.
The argument for going on the show being a good recruitment strategy for the left requires you to try and have it both ways, and you can't.
When you're talking about millions of people, this kind of dichotomy seems overly simplistic at best and false at worst.
To test the hypothesis that Bernie is leading so many leftests to Joe Rogan like lambs to the slaughter, I decided to check out if his Youtube views went up after the Sanders interview.
Luckly, there was a perfect video for doing this. One day after Bernie, Joe had Brendan Schaub on his show. Brendan is a podcaster/comedian that used to be an MMA fighter.
The last time Brendan was on Joe's podcast was a scant 2 months ago, and his appearance generated 2.5 million views.
The recent appearance has thus far generated 1.8 million views. Now it's possible that over the next month or two an extra million or more views will come in but that is not the usual pattern for Youtube views.
Early findings show that Bernie's effect on Joe's lasting audience is wildly exaggerated.
If that's the conclusion you want to draw, go nuts. But again: If Rogan's effect on Sanders' audience is negligible, then Sanders' effect on Rogan's audience is also negligible and the idea that anything was gained for the left by going on the show is undercut, unless you can make the argument that exposure to Sanders was specifically much more effective at flipping Rogan fans than exposure to Rogan was at flipping Sanders fans.
You cannot simultaneously argue that 1)there was no harm from Sanders going on Rogan's show because people tuning in for one interview aren't converted into habitual supporters/won't listen to other content and also that 2)it's good and important for the left to go onto platforms like the JRE in order to win converts who will seek out their other content.
Either audiences are easy to convert in this context, in which case going on Rogan was a bad idea because the cost of converting some of his audience into Bernie Sanders supporters was putting a proportional amount of your own much larger audience into the alt-right recruitment pipeline
or audiences are hard to convert and don't stick around, in which case going on Rogan was a bad idea because you're just wasting time on an ineffective platform for no gain whilst legitimizing a dude who keeps humanizing far-right bigots in front of large crowds.
The argument for going on the show being a good recruitment strategy for the left requires you to try and have it both ways, and you can't.
this supposes that the arguments and ideas are equivalent or at the very least the people listening will see them as such.
I don't believe that's the case.
I think Bernies message of "rich people are fucking you" is going to be more powerful than whatever the hell peterson says.
These may be people who voted for Trump because of his drain the swamp, and poor people got screwed by trade message and despite Trump being a lying liar who doesn't give a shit about anyone else the message is one that got through.
If we think it's a bad idea for democratic ideas about taking care of the non-rich to reach these people then I don't know how you are ever gonna win in 2020.
If Republicans and alt-right whacko's are the only ones talking to the poor low info voter who is just too lazy to actually follow politics or get involved then you get more republicans and alt-right leaning people. It's a critical mistake to assume everyone wants to be or should be an activist for progressive policy.
Sometimes you have to pick up the basket of deplorables yourself and take it with you.
8.1 million people listened to Bernie talk about important social programs for an hour uninterrupted and uncluttered by advertisers.
I find it fascinating that people are working really hard to frame that as a bad thing.
And these 8.1 million people would probably have listened to him if he had done a twitch or youtube stream on his own.
Instead now these people have been made aware of Rogan, who seems to have some transphobic issues, and sometimes has white supremacists as guests and offers no pushback to them.
This is not hard.
Don't give platforms to white supremacists, don't signal boost platforms that do if you can avoid it (unfortunately avoiding twitter is not really an option ).
This is not some unforgivable sin, but i think it probably was a poor decision.
I think the most laughable thing is how so many in this thread pretend that they somehow have had the true and final liberal morals inherently in them since the day of their birth. Like they obviously never listened to any sort of retrograde media or held any views other than the 2019 US College Liberal's consensus.
Especially on a god damn video game forum. Particularly this one.
8.1 million people listened to Bernie talk about important social programs for an hour uninterrupted and uncluttered by advertisers.
I find it fascinating that people are working really hard to frame that as a bad thing.
And these 8.1 million people would probably have listened to him if he had done a twitch or youtube stream on his own.
Instead now these people have been made aware of Rogan, who seems to have some transphobic issues, and sometimes has white supremacists as guests and offers no pushback to them.
This is not hard.
Don't give platforms to white supremacists, don't signal boost platforms that do if you can avoid it (unfortunately avoiding twitter is not really an option ).
This is not some unforgivable sin, but i think it probably was a poor decision.
8.1 million people listened to Bernie talk about important social programs for an hour uninterrupted and uncluttered by advertisers.
I find it fascinating that people are working really hard to frame that as a bad thing.
Is there any venue which can deliver an uninterrupted hour of Bernie to 8.1 million listeners that Bernie shouldn't go on? Breitbart? 8chan? Stormfront? A Klan rally?
I get that any chance for Bernie to get his message out is a good thing for Bernie; but is it always a good thing for, you know, society?
8.1 million people listened to Bernie talk about important social programs for an hour uninterrupted and uncluttered by advertisers.
I find it fascinating that people are working really hard to frame that as a bad thing.
Is there any venue which can deliver an uninterrupted hour of Bernie to 8.1 million listeners that Bernie shouldn't go on? Breitbart? 8chan? Stormfront? A Klan rally?
I get that any chance for Bernie to get his message out is a good thing for Bernie; but is it always a good thing for, you know, society?
Yeah he probably shouldn't go on Breitbart, 8chan, Stormfront, or a Klan rally. Thank you for bringing up this very realistic scenario so we could all deeply weigh the moral complexity of not talking to literal self identifying white supremacists.
8.1 million people listened to Bernie talk about important social programs for an hour uninterrupted and uncluttered by advertisers.
I find it fascinating that people are working really hard to frame that as a bad thing.
Is there any venue which can deliver an uninterrupted hour of Bernie to 8.1 million listeners that Bernie shouldn't go on? Breitbart? 8chan? Stormfront? A Klan rally?
I get that any chance for Bernie to get his message out is a good thing for Bernie; but is it always a good thing for, you know, society?
I think of the 4, Breitbart is the only one where there's any real chance of making head way, but I dont think Rogan's show or audience is like any of those.
Ok, where did these 8.1 million viewers come form, if neither Bernie or Rogan have anywhere near that level of pull normally?
And why could this effect not be created outside Rogans podcast?
Ok, where did these 8.1 million viewers come form, if neither Bernie or Rogan have anywhere near that level of pull normally?
And why could this effect not be created outside Rogans podcast?
Rogan is a big name with a big audience so when it comes out he'll be interviewing Sanders it gets more attention.
There's no mystery here. Some people just have to spend a lot of words for a bad argument.
8.1 million people listened to Bernie talk about important social programs for an hour uninterrupted and uncluttered by advertisers.
I find it fascinating that people are working really hard to frame that as a bad thing.
Is there any venue which can deliver an uninterrupted hour of Bernie to 8.1 million listeners that Bernie shouldn't go on? Breitbart? 8chan? Stormfront? A Klan rally?
I get that any chance for Bernie to get his message out is a good thing for Bernie; but is it always a good thing for, you know, society?
Yeah he probably shouldn't go on Breitbart, 8chan, Stormfront, or a Klan rally. Thank you for bringing up this very realistic scenario so we could all deeply weigh the moral complexity of not talking to literal self identifying white supremacists.
The post I was responding to suggested that Bernie getting his message out was so obviously a good thing that anybody who didn't like the way he did it was secretly anti-socialist or something
I was pointing out that there are circumstances under which Bernie getting his message out is not necessarily an unalloyed good above all criticism
I chose extreme examples because I wanted to establish if the poster had any consideration for medium at all--after which we are haggling over the price and arguing about Rogan personally--or didn't care no matter what the circumstances--in which case the argument needed to move to a broader place.
Edit: This is a response to TinWiskers dickwolves post. I did not quote and got crushed in the speed of replies
I don't think that is what is being claimed. Rather that signal boosting retrograde media is not ideal if you dont want that retrograde media to continue in that vein and spread in influence. I.E. If you wanted to push back against the dickwolves joke in order to correct that transgression you would not go do an interview with Mike and Jerry where you would be normalizing their participation. If you were going to do that interview you would have to make it about the differences between you so as to push the regular viewers towards your worldview. You could not let Mike and Jerry interview you so much as you interviewed Mike and Jerry. Did Sanders did that with Rogan? I don't know. I've watched about 1 minute of Rogan (that Sleep linked) and now have pretty much no desire to watch any more. Though i doubt that is routinely possible given the amount of preparation required
edit2: And if you do do that interview without pushing back on their behavior then you are normalizing it.
Posts
If you're actually trying to convince someone of the error of their ways, you talk about the view they expressed as being racist, not calling them racist. But that's for a nuanced conversation.
Don't expect a polite, nuanced conversation to happen in response to people being loudly bigoted in public.
What a world we live in, where conservatives spout radicalizing rhetoric, and it radicalizes people.
And if liberals call them out on their radicalizing rhetoric, it also radicalizes people... the same direction that the conservative rhetoric does.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
I think you shouldn't use, much less have to use, post-hoc excuses to justify your behavior.
To say racism makes your skin crawl and you want nothing to do with anyone who partakes in it is fine. Maybe not the epitome of tolerance, but I don't think anyone here would blame you for feeling that way.
To say that it's okay to treat racists with nothing but contempt and disdain, and anyone that is turned off by that is also a racist, just not ready to admit it, not only doesn't really line up with how people work, it sets a very dangerous precedent to treat anyone that disagrees with you as racist.
And that is not the logic of someone dedicated to social equality. It's the logic of a fanatic.
This is a conservative strategy. Say something outrageous in a non-outrageous way, wait for someone to get justifiably incensed about it, then be all "oh my look at the intolerant left being all shouty!" Just shouting "you're a nazi!" at someone isn't going to make their fans change their mind. Explaining things in detail in a long form conversation probably has a better chance.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't oppose nazis every step of the way and protest against them etc etc, but if you go on Rogan's show and yell YOU'RE A NAZI at him it probably isn't going to help.
The left handwrings over whether calling out reprehensible shit will drive low info, kinda terrible voters into the arms of the other side, a worry reinforced by right wingers going “I didn’t choose to be a Nazi until the left said Nazis were bad, so rude, but also [insert Nazi policy here]”
Less than a year ago we discovered that Trump and the GOP had pushed away so many people that we had higher numbers of Democratic votes than we’ve had in decades
Before that, Trump lost by 3 million votes
For all the whining and handwringing, I think the insanity and cruelty on the right is speaking louder than “those mean SJWs”
People naturally dislike conflict and it upsets them to see the status quo criticized, but if we’re not going to say things like “This obvious Nazi is a Nazi, stop working with him, stop giving him a platform” then we’re just accepting the status quo and might as well give up and vote Republican
In reality we’re winning hearts and minds (turning that into power through the fucked up, gerrymandered American system of government is another issue entirely) and the other side has been driving the middle to the left since at least Bush.
Sure, people in internet arguments can always be a little nicer, but this idea that the left standing up for humanity is politically unwise is just gaslighting from those who would prefer no one stand up for humanity.
(Edited to remove the thing, sorry about that)
I don't think anyone is saying don't be an advocate for people or don't to stand up for humanity... this is a little much.
Luckly, there was a perfect video for doing this. One day after Bernie, Joe had Brendan Schaub on his show. Brendan is a podcaster/comedian that used to be an MMA fighter.
The last time Brendan was on Joe's podcast was a scant 2 months ago, and his appearance generated 2.5 million views.
The recent appearance has thus far generated 1.8 million views. Now it's possible that over the next month or two an extra million or more views will come in but that is not the usual pattern for Youtube views.
Early findings show that Bernie's effect on Joe's lasting audience is wildly exaggerated.
The issue isn't "dont talk to non-democrats," the issue is "don't talk on platforms that make their money either by advocating for, or otherwise abetting, hate speech."
*Except for this long list of the other platforms that do that, which are used every day. They don't count.
I don't agree.
If liberals can get on then that changes what that platform does.
When liberals don't go on then it becomes exclusively a place for a single bad message which is the complete opposite of what we want.
Refusing to engage does not make Rogan or the people watching go away it just takes away another channel for a liberal message to get out.
Do I need to pull out the Atwater quote about starting with the n word but having to move to dog-whistles like "states rights" and "forced busing"?
Why not try to win voters somewhere they're not going to be constantly exposed to a narrative of social justice as a negative, even if they do join our side? JRE isn't the only game in town.
What is another big platform to go on that doesn't also have issues with racism, homophobia, transphobia, etc.?
Why not both?
I'm super happy to see empirical viewing data on Joe Rogan. Good job Abbalah!
We can argue for a long time about whether or not his show is a gateway (i am not convinced) but he certainly does have a lot of very popular videos with ethically gross people. So I will definitely agree that Joe Rogan hosts morally bankrupt people like Shapiro and Peterson. But one thing Shapiro and Peterson and Rogan do is provide purpose and acknowledgement to their listeners. So if Bernie (and other populists) want to get their votes, they go and acknowledge them. I'm also fairly sure this was Bernie's campaign managers idea. I doubt Bernie had any idea who Joe Rogan was prior.
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.
Yes they absolutely have. They've been doing it since like 2004. It was one of Michael Steele's big pushes post-2008 at the latest. If nothing else they are at desperate pains to about being seen as racist, because they know it's disqualifying. That's literally the basis of Atwater's strategy. They just get drowned out by the unending shrieks issuing forth from the Eye of Terror.
The idea is you get them in the door on heakthcare and then when theyre not getting all their social policy information from shitty people you win them over on other issues as well.
If that's the conclusion you want to draw, go nuts. But again: If Rogan's effect on Sanders' audience is negligible, then Sanders' effect on Rogan's audience is also negligible and the idea that anything was gained for the left by going on the show is undercut, unless you can make the argument that exposure to Sanders was specifically much more effective at flipping Rogan fans than exposure to Rogan was at flipping Sanders fans.
You cannot simultaneously argue that 1)there was no harm from Sanders going on Rogan's show because people tuning in for one interview aren't converted into habitual supporters/won't listen to other content and also that 2)it's good and important for the left to go onto platforms like the JRE in order to win converts who will seek out their other content.
Either audiences are easy to convert in this context, in which case going on Rogan was a bad idea because the cost of converting some of his audience into Bernie Sanders supporters was putting a proportional amount of your own much larger audience into the alt-right recruitment pipeline
or audiences are hard to convert and don't stick around, in which case going on Rogan was a bad idea because you're just wasting time on an ineffective platform for no gain whilst legitimizing a dude who keeps humanizing far-right bigots in front of large crowds.
The argument for going on the show being a good recruitment strategy for the left requires you to try and have it both ways, and you can't.
Thank you for responding!
I didn't know who Eddie Bravo was, I had to look him up. Rogan does indeed hit back at him, but ffs, it's flat-earthism. It's not harmless by any extent, but that's the lowest of hanging fruit
If the best we can find of Rogan "pushing back" is this, then that's a terrible look for Rogan.
If people honestly believe that every argument is equally convincing regardless of content or presentation, it goes a long way to explaining why they're so afraid to engage with those they disagree with, less the words from their forked tongue worms their way into their souls.
The underlined does not follow.
In order for Joe Rogan's worst guests to have an impact on Bernie's followers, Bernie's followers have to stick around and listen to Joe Rogan's worst guests. They don't reach forward through time and space and convince people who watch content they aren't a part of.
On the other hand, every habitual Joe Rogan listener has now listened to Bernie.
You don't have to "have it both ways" to think this is a win for Bernie.
When you're talking about millions of people, this kind of dichotomy seems overly simplistic at best and false at worst.
this supposes that the arguments and ideas are equivalent or at the very least the people listening will see them as such.
I don't believe that's the case.
I think Bernies message of "rich people are fucking you" is going to be more powerful than whatever the hell peterson says.
These may be people who voted for Trump because of his drain the swamp, and poor people got screwed by trade message and despite Trump being a lying liar who doesn't give a shit about anyone else the message is one that got through.
If we think it's a bad idea for democratic ideas about taking care of the non-rich to reach these people then I don't know how you are ever gonna win in 2020.
If Republicans and alt-right whacko's are the only ones talking to the poor low info voter who is just too lazy to actually follow politics or get involved then you get more republicans and alt-right leaning people. It's a critical mistake to assume everyone wants to be or should be an activist for progressive policy.
Sometimes you have to pick up the basket of deplorables yourself and take it with you.
I find it fascinating that people are working really hard to frame that as a bad thing.
He talked to a bad man and is therefore bad.
Instead now these people have been made aware of Rogan, who seems to have some transphobic issues, and sometimes has white supremacists as guests and offers no pushback to them.
This is not hard.
Don't give platforms to white supremacists, don't signal boost platforms that do if you can avoid it (unfortunately avoiding twitter is not really an option
This is not some unforgivable sin, but i think it probably was a poor decision.
Especially on a god damn video game forum. Particularly this one.
That's a spurious claim
The median view count on his VODs are <500.Though there are a few with like 17k views.
Your statements are not backed by reality.
Is there any venue which can deliver an uninterrupted hour of Bernie to 8.1 million listeners that Bernie shouldn't go on? Breitbart? 8chan? Stormfront? A Klan rally?
I get that any chance for Bernie to get his message out is a good thing for Bernie; but is it always a good thing for, you know, society?
I think of the 4, Breitbart is the only one where there's any real chance of making head way, but I dont think Rogan's show or audience is like any of those.
And why could this effect not be created outside Rogans podcast?
Rogan is a big name with a big audience so when it comes out he'll be interviewing Sanders it gets more attention.
There's no mystery here. Some people just have to spend a lot of words for a bad argument.
The most recent 5 vids Sanders posted on his Youtube channel have about 25k views combined.
The post I was responding to suggested that Bernie getting his message out was so obviously a good thing that anybody who didn't like the way he did it was secretly anti-socialist or something
I was pointing out that there are circumstances under which Bernie getting his message out is not necessarily an unalloyed good above all criticism
I chose extreme examples because I wanted to establish if the poster had any consideration for medium at all--after which we are haggling over the price and arguing about Rogan personally--or didn't care no matter what the circumstances--in which case the argument needed to move to a broader place.
I don't think that is what is being claimed. Rather that signal boosting retrograde media is not ideal if you dont want that retrograde media to continue in that vein and spread in influence. I.E. If you wanted to push back against the dickwolves joke in order to correct that transgression you would not go do an interview with Mike and Jerry where you would be normalizing their participation. If you were going to do that interview you would have to make it about the differences between you so as to push the regular viewers towards your worldview. You could not let Mike and Jerry interview you so much as you interviewed Mike and Jerry. Did Sanders did that with Rogan? I don't know. I've watched about 1 minute of Rogan (that Sleep linked) and now have pretty much no desire to watch any more. Though i doubt that is routinely possible given the amount of preparation required
edit2: And if you do do that interview without pushing back on their behavior then you are normalizing it.