"Preventing outliers" when, what? Preventing outliers when you talk about the difference between healthcare plans? Or the outliers when you accuse people of trying to remove gun owners 2nd amendment rights by faking the death of children?
Frankie apparently thinks Jones communicates by magic and reducing his exposure can't reduce the number of people who act on his bullshit.
Frankie thinks that when you're talking about which "one or two" lunatic conspiracy theorists will snap, it is very likely that they fall in the camp of those who will take suppression of their truth-teller to be evidence and confirmation of a conspiracy. Frankie likewise appreciates the words and meanings you attribute to him despite them not being present in any of his posts.
Then maybe he shouldn't be pushing this shit so people "snap."
Sure. Maybe he shouldn't. Maybe no one should go hungry and there should be no more war and everyone should be nice to eachother. I dispute none of these things.
"Preventing outliers" when, what? Preventing outliers when you talk about the difference between healthcare plans? Or the outliers when you accuse people of trying to remove gun owners 2nd amendment rights by faking the death of children?
Frankie apparently thinks Jones communicates by magic and reducing his exposure can't reduce the number of people who act on his bullshit.
Frankie thinks that when you're talking about which "one or two" lunatic conspiracy theorists will snap, it is very likely that they fall in the camp of those who will take suppression of their truth-teller to be evidence and confirmation of a conspiracy. Frankie likewise appreciates the words and meanings you attribute to him despite them not being present in any of his posts.
The Sandy Hook thing wasn't one or two. And again this presupposes he already has 100% of his viewership. If increasing his viewers can't increase the number of outliers the only conclusions are
A. He's somehow miraculously attracted 100% of the assholes
Or
B. The magic communication
Because if you have a viewership of X and Y are vicious outliers, increasing X increases Y. That's how it works.
He can certainly have more viewers. But I would rather have more viewers who treat him like a joke than fewer viewers that rally around his internet martyrdom.
He was, in my opinion, less dangerous when people watched him for shit like this.
I never saw a serious word spoken in his defense until the de-platforming push began. He turned from a joke into a quasi-martyr and that was our fault and it's simply sad. Because the true believers aren't going anywhere, and for the rest it's a damn shame that his name even comes up in conversations unrelated to frogs.
By the time the de platforming push started he'd already caused serious problems.
Also duh you didn't hear anyone defending him when no one was proposing to do anything about him. Also TBH you probably did hear a defense of a different sort.
"It's just a joke"
The problem with Jones was that it really was just a joke for a long long time. that was literally the schtick, he would come on mainstream morning radio and rave like a crazy person about chemtrails and the Bildebergs and the hosts would just straight drag him for 10 solid minutes while he apparently didn't have a clue he was being mocked as a fool the whole time. Then he'd go back to his dinky KLBJ AM show and try every night to be more crazy than Art Bell.
Somehow, nobody else checked in with the OG Austinites when he got a webpage and here we fucking are.
The problem with Jones is that people like you think that "it's just a joke" is somekind of defense.
A lot of these "but what if they so much as hear Shapiro" arguments rely on an assumption that we fundamentally cant be more appealing than them which is p. depressing because have you ever heard that guy talk?
It doesnt have to work on everyone to be an effective method. Buuut their messages do have inherent “advantages” compared to the liberal ones in that the message of “actually you dont need to do anything its the other that is the problem” is more seductive than “its hard work to be a better person but we all have to change” and preventing people from hearing it is a gain for liberals
I mean yeah fine words have consequences and these are bad people. Pretending we're doing anything useful by avoiding major platforms just because theyve been on them is laughable.
Not “just because they have been on them” but because the platform normalizes and humanizes them without pushback.
Apologizing for Bernie going on the Joe Rogan experience is probably the clearest example yet of how there is a cleavage in "the left" that is in fact only economically left, and there are a not-insignificant amount of "leftists" who are either socially "conservative" (regressive) or otherwise apathetic/not as concerned with social welfare.
Incredible how "tell it like it is" socialists will all of a sudden wind up in rhetorical pretzels when one of their own goes on a show that has repeatedly hosted the likes of Shapiro, Peterson, and Gavin fuckin McInnes. Last I checked being anti-fascist means making these assholes persona non grata, not throwing out thinkpieces about how, actually, we're going to convince fascist-curious folks to switch sides via the millennial equivalent of tv punditry.
You could say the same shit about the Iowa State Fair.
The Iowa State Fair glorifies and normalizes the imprisonment and murder of animals- it not just their guests the entire event celebrates it. They actively auction off slaves there. People cheer when someone puts in a new high bid for the right to murder and consume someone. Why would any liberal attend that event, or support any other liberal attending it?
If you were a meat is murder vegetarian then it would indeed not make sense to attend the event or support people who did... Unless you were attending in a manner explicitly to bring to like the practice for which you had significant disagreements with the fair(like a protest...)
So I don't understand what you're trying to say.
It doesn't make sense if your goal out of the political process is anything more than value signaling. Say I'm whatever confluence of beliefs we are treating as the One True Liberal, plus meat is murder vegetarianism. I should refuse to support any of the democratic candidates? Any candidate I support shouldn't appear on any TV broadcast with a non-vegan cooking segment?
Jill Stein 2020 Here We GO!
I still dont understand. I can vote for sanders without thinking that Sanders going on Rogan was a good idea.
I dont see anyone suggesting Bernie should be excommunicated for going in Rogan or even that you should not support Bernie as a result, just criticized... which is fine
Alex Jones is far from alt-right imo. He’s a conspiracy nut whose conspiracies historically and presently cross party lines. He will ultimately be remembered for his on-air attempts to go super sayan and break the programming with his masculine energy. There will be a postscript about gay frogs. If we fear this man and his influence we are fools.
Will some ppl take him serious? Sure. Some people are fools and that can’t be helped. Can’t bend society around them or we’ll be in knots forever.
You know that the current President of the United States went on his show, right?
You know that people have been harassed for years because they were called liars on his show, right?
To deny the real harm that he does because he happens to also act very foolish is exactly what he wants you to do.
nah, what he wants you to do is buy a T-shirt and click on some ads because it's a grift. He doesn't care about the harm, which makes him a terrible person, but this isn't some kind of thing where he's hiding behind 'it's just jokes'. he doesn't care if you laugh at him as long as you watch. It's a performance, folks. He's performing. It's true that he doesn't care what people do with the performance after it's over, and again that makes him a terrible person, but what he wants you to do is give him clicks and buy his merch. No more, no less.
It doesnt matter. And defenses like this support why it doesnt. Youre here, very really, defending his content because you think he doesn’t believe it.
What if you think Coulter didnt believe her content? Or Shapiro? Or any of the others? Is it OK for them to be racist because you dont believe thwt they are racist in their hearts?
The answer is that what they believe doesnt matter. Because you cant know that. Its only their content that matters. And the content is vile.
+10
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
It seems clear to me that if Jones was given a platform in the beginning just so he could be mocked, that the end result of that was Jones having a large fan base and causing real harm
The actual lesson being that giving people like Jones a platform actually does do harm even if you’re not taking him seriously
It seems clear to me that if Jones was given a platform in the beginning just so he could be mocked, that the end result of that was Jones having a large fan base and causing real harm
The actual lesson being that giving people like Jones a platform actually does do harm even if you’re not taking him seriously
He wasn’t given a platform. He did what most people did, started something and enough people were intrigued. What do you suggest? Ban conspiracy theories, being a public loon?
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
It seems clear to me that if Jones was given a platform in the beginning just so he could be mocked, that the end result of that was Jones having a large fan base and causing real harm
The actual lesson being that giving people like Jones a platform actually does do harm even if you’re not taking him seriously
He wasn’t given a platform. He did what most people did, started something and enough people were intrigued. What do you suggest? Ban conspiracy theories, being a public loon?
The problem with Jones was that it really was just a joke for a long long time. that was literally the schtick, he would come on mainstream morning radio and rave like a crazy person about chemtrails and the Bildebergs and the hosts would just straight drag him for 10 solid minutes while he apparently didn't have a clue he was being mocked as a fool the whole time. Then he'd go back to his dinky KLBJ AM show and try every night to be more crazy than Art Bell.
I’m just taking Spool’s word for it but it sounds like mainstream morning radio gave him a platform
A lot of these "but what if they so much as hear Shapiro" arguments rely on an assumption that we fundamentally cant be more appealing than them which is p. depressing because have you ever heard that guy talk?
right wing thought is not a mysterious brain poison that you pour into someone's ear and they become corrupted
obviously it works on some people but you can't actually go around talking about an entire demographic of listeners like they're stupid babies in need of protecting from dangerous ideas. it is actually possible to just reason with people
You acknowledge that right-wing and alt-right punditry works on some people.
When you introduce five or six million new people to a venue that pushes right-wing and alt-right punditry, it is going to work on some of them.
That's not treating an entire demographic of listeners like they're stupid babies, it's just a consequence of statistics.
These flippant remarks that try to reframe the argument against legitimizing Rogan from "bringing new audiences into an alt-right recruitment platform will broaden that platform's harmful reach" into some sort of absurd 'oh no if you put a bunch of bernie bros in front of Alex Jones every single one will instantly turn into uniformed Nazis in a flash of light and smoke like the Ark of the Covenant running in reverse' Doom Prophecy are insultingly reductive.
It seems clear to me that if Jones was given a platform in the beginning just so he could be mocked, that the end result of that was Jones having a large fan base and causing real harm
The actual lesson being that giving people like Jones a platform actually does do harm even if you’re not taking him seriously
He wasn’t given a platform. He did what most people did, started something and enough people were intrigued. What do you suggest? Ban conspiracy theories, being a public loon?
The problem with Jones was that it really was just a joke for a long long time. that was literally the schtick, he would come on mainstream morning radio and rave like a crazy person about chemtrails and the Bildebergs and the hosts would just straight drag him for 10 solid minutes while he apparently didn't have a clue he was being mocked as a fool the whole time. Then he'd go back to his dinky KLBJ AM show and try every night to be more crazy than Art Bell.
I’m just taking Spool’s word for it but it sounds like mainstream morning radio gave him a platform
What I mean is no one just gave it to him. No one walked up one day and said “here’s a radio station” out of the blue. He wasn’t living an ordinary life when a man knocked on his door and offered him a radio station. Like anyone else, he started small and grew his following and people picked him up accordingly. That’s how these things work and I’m not sure what your solution is. If enough people find conspiracy theories intriguing there will be people providing them. Short of banning them outright (which, lol) I dunno what you want to do.
Crazies gonna crazy about Chem trails, aliens, gay Illuminati bodybuilders, 9/11, whatever. The nature of their obsession means that suppression is equal to confirmation. That’s why mockery is best. Do not give them that shred of legitimacy they crave. It’s counterproductive.
Almost nobody is going to die because of nuts.
Almost nobody is going to go shoot up a pizza parlor because Alex Jones.
We still try to limit the harm nuts cause through warning labels and not putting them everywhere.
What precautions are we taking about Alex Jones?
A lot of these "but what if they so much as hear Shapiro" arguments rely on an assumption that we fundamentally cant be more appealing than them which is p. depressing because have you ever heard that guy talk?
right wing thought is not a mysterious brain poison that you pour into someone's ear and they become corrupted
obviously it works on some people but you can't actually go around talking about an entire demographic of listeners like they're stupid babies in need of protecting from dangerous ideas. it is actually possible to just reason with people
You acknowledge that right-wing and alt-right punditry works on some people.
When you introduce five or six million new people to a venue that pushes right-wing and alt-right punditry, it is going to work on some of them.
That's not treating an entire demographic of listeners like they're stupid babies, it's just a consequence of statistics.
These flippant remarks that try to reframe the argument against legitimizing Rogan from "bringing new audiences into an alt-right recruitment platform will broaden that platform's harmful reach" into some sort of absurd 'oh no if you put a bunch of bernie bros in front of Alex Jones every single one will instantly turn into uniformed Nazis in a flash of light and smoke like the Ark of the Covenant running in reverse' Doom Prophecy are insultingly reductive.
statistically, if you do anything, something bad might happen. if you say billionaires are bad at least one person is going to become a stalinist. who cares? i personally am willing to roll the dice on more rogan listeners getting turned onto socialism than bernie bros becoming sandy hook conspiracy guys
Julian Castro is buying ad time on Fox News to talk directly to the president. I'm kinda surprised fox is running it. I'm not wild about directly giving money to fox, but all the same I'm glad there is some counter programming going on.
A lot of these "but what if they so much as hear Shapiro" arguments rely on an assumption that we fundamentally cant be more appealing than them which is p. depressing because have you ever heard that guy talk?
right wing thought is not a mysterious brain poison that you pour into someone's ear and they become corrupted
obviously it works on some people but you can't actually go around talking about an entire demographic of listeners like they're stupid babies in need of protecting from dangerous ideas. it is actually possible to just reason with people
You acknowledge that right-wing and alt-right punditry works on some people.
When you introduce five or six million new people to a venue that pushes right-wing and alt-right punditry, it is going to work on some of them.
That's not treating an entire demographic of listeners like they're stupid babies, it's just a consequence of statistics.
These flippant remarks that try to reframe the argument against legitimizing Rogan from "bringing new audiences into an alt-right recruitment platform will broaden that platform's harmful reach" into some sort of absurd 'oh no if you put a bunch of bernie bros in front of Alex Jones every single one will instantly turn into uniformed Nazis in a flash of light and smoke like the Ark of the Covenant running in reverse' Doom Prophecy are insultingly reductive.
statistically, if you do anything, something bad might happen. if you say billionaires are bad at least one person is going to become a stalinist. who cares? i personally am willing to roll the dice on more rogan listeners getting turned onto socialism than bernie bros becoming sandy hook conspiracy guys
Who cares? Look at the threads with the various white supremacist and Incel killers, look at how white supremacy has infected and twisted the government into before and with Trump, look at how Trumpism has affected American culture and its institutions, look at the victims of the conspiracy theorists (Alex Jones/Anti-vaxx movement). Do you care about that? All this becomes more mainstream with what Rogan's doing. He may as well be another Fox News talking head with those conservative figurehead interviews.
+7
Options
No-QuarterNothing To FearBut Fear ItselfRegistered Userregular
Sanders simply appearing on Rogan's show isn't the problem. Him appearing on his show without bringing up the harm Rogan enables is the problem.
+4
Options
No-QuarterNothing To FearBut Fear ItselfRegistered Userregular
So we are going to concede the point that Rogan offers any form of significant pushback or criticism of his guests such as Shapiro, Milo, Owen's, and the like to their faces?
Because it's been a few pages since I asked and all we've gotten is some rebuffing of a flat-earther UFC guy.
So we are going to concede the point that Rogan offers any form of significant pushback or criticism of his guests such as Shapiro, Milo, Owen's, and the like to their faces?
Because it's been a few pages since I asked and all we've gotten is some rebuffing of a flat-earther UFC guy.
I may agree with Rogan, while Owens comes out looking like the smarter between the two in this conversation despite her argument being bullshit. He's more concerned about chilling out and asking "why" than countering her with a deeper level of science. And he starts off ignoring her comment about Globalists.
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.
So we are going to concede the point that Rogan offers any form of significant pushback or criticism of his guests such as Shapiro, Milo, Owen's, and the like to their faces?
Because it's been a few pages since I asked and all we've gotten is some rebuffing of a flat-earther UFC guy.
I may agree with Rogan, while Owens comes out looking like the smarter between the two in this conversation despite her argument being bullshit. He's more concerned about chilling out and asking "why" than countering her with a deeper level of science. And he starts off ignoring her comment about Globalists.
Thank you Harry, I'll watch this when I'm not at work.
A lot of these "but what if they so much as hear Shapiro" arguments rely on an assumption that we fundamentally cant be more appealing than them which is p. depressing because have you ever heard that guy talk?
right wing thought is not a mysterious brain poison that you pour into someone's ear and they become corrupted
obviously it works on some people but you can't actually go around talking about an entire demographic of listeners like they're stupid babies in need of protecting from dangerous ideas. it is actually possible to just reason with people
You acknowledge that right-wing and alt-right punditry works on some people.
When you introduce five or six million new people to a venue that pushes right-wing and alt-right punditry, it is going to work on some of them.
That's not treating an entire demographic of listeners like they're stupid babies, it's just a consequence of statistics.
These flippant remarks that try to reframe the argument against legitimizing Rogan from "bringing new audiences into an alt-right recruitment platform will broaden that platform's harmful reach" into some sort of absurd 'oh no if you put a bunch of bernie bros in front of Alex Jones every single one will instantly turn into uniformed Nazis in a flash of light and smoke like the Ark of the Covenant running in reverse' Doom Prophecy are insultingly reductive.
statistically, if you do anything, something bad might happen. if you say billionaires are bad at least one person is going to become a stalinist. who cares? i personally am willing to roll the dice on more rogan listeners getting turned onto socialism than bernie bros becoming sandy hook conspiracy guys
Who cares? Look at the threads with the various white supremacist and Incel killers, look at how white supremacy has infected and twisted the government into before and with Trump, look at how Trumpism has affected American culture and its institutions, look at the victims of the conspiracy theorists (Alex Jones/Anti-vaxx movement). Do you care about that? All this becomes more mainstream with what Rogan's doing. He may as well be another Fox News talking head with those conservative figurehead interviews.
Are you trying to make a case for yourself and the people you already agree with here, or do you want to convince somebody? Because this stuff here is not convincing or meaningful unless the reader already agrees with you.
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.
Are you trying to make a case for yourself and the people you already agree with here, or do you want to convince somebody? Because this stuff here is not convincing or meaningful unless the reader already agrees with you.
What don't you agree with in my post? How is what I wrote not meaningful or convincing?
Are you trying to make a case for yourself and the people you already agree with here, or do you want to convince somebody? Because this stuff here is not convincing or meaningful unless the reader already agrees with you.
What don't you agree with in my post? How is what I wrote not meaningful or convincing?
I can't really agree or disagree with a statement like "Look at the threads with the various white supremacist and Incel killers" but I looked at those threads and having done so I do disagree with statements like "All this becomes more mainstream with what Rogan's doing" and "He may as well be another Fox News talking head with those conservative figurehead interviews." It seems like you're taking complicated phenomena with a causal story that can't be summed up in a couple of sentences and making these sweeping judgments based on a limited set of facts. I'm right there with you when the criticism is, for example, "Rogan's long-form softball conversational interviews are bad when they give fascists and bigots an opportunity to whitewash their ideas" but then you go and say something like "He may as well be another Fox News talking head" and you lose me because that seems to be ignoring ways that Rogan is obviously not like a Fox News talking head. I can't tell you that its wrong for the similarities to loom larger in your mind than the differences, but I remain unconvinced that I ought to think about him the same way you do.
Are you trying to make a case for yourself and the people you already agree with here, or do you want to convince somebody? Because this stuff here is not convincing or meaningful unless the reader already agrees with you.
What don't you agree with in my post? How is what I wrote not meaningful or convincing?
I can't really agree or disagree with a statement like "Look at the threads with the various white supremacist and Incel killers" but I looked at those threads and having done so I do disagree with statements like "All this becomes more mainstream with what Rogan's doing" and "He may as well be another Fox News talking head with those conservative figurehead interviews." It seems like you're taking complicated phenomena with a causal story that can't be summed up in a couple of sentences and making these sweeping judgments based on a limited set of facts. I'm right there with you when the criticism is, for example, "Rogan's long-form softball conversational interviews are bad when they give fascists and bigots an opportunity to whitewash their ideas" but then you go and say something like "He may as well be another Fox News talking head" and you lose me because that seems to be ignoring ways that Rogan is obviously not like a Fox News talking head. I can't tell you that its wrong for the similarities to loom larger in your mind than the differences, but I remain unconvinced that I ought to think about him the same way you do.
Rogen being compared to Fox news talking heads or whatever works in the context of him being part of an ecosystem, but it will definitely fall apart if you try to make a 1:1 comparison expecting to find a carbon copy.
Yes, with a quick verbal "boom." You take a man's peko, you deny him his dab, all that is left is to rise up and tear down the walls of Jericho with a ".....not!" -TexiKen
+4
Options
MonwynApathy's a tragedy, and boredom is a crime.A little bit of everything, all of the time.Registered Userregular
So we are going to concede the point that Rogan offers any form of significant pushback or criticism of his guests such as Shapiro, Milo, Owen's, and the like to their faces?
Because it's been a few pages since I asked and all we've gotten is some rebuffing of a flat-earther UFC guy.
Rogan mostly doesn't push back unless it's about something he knows a lot about or feels strongly about. That basically means martial arts, drug use and lately hunting. Outside of these areas, Rogan is pretty much only a comfortable person to talk too. That's how the show started. That is his stated goal for it.
There was some push back against Eddie Bravo, because they're very close personal friends and the flat earth stick got annoying, but Rogan specifically isn't there to call out his guests - for good or for ill.
Fuck off and die.
+3
Options
KoopahTroopahThe koopas, the troopas.Philadelphia, PARegistered Userregular
edited August 2019
I'm neither for or against this argument, but I think there is both value on Bernie going on the show, and potential harm from Bernie introducing a new audience to Rogan's other guests. I just wanted to post this YouTube comment that hit the front page of Reddit about the podcast since I don't think anyone else was talking about it yet.
So we are going to concede the point that Rogan offers any form of significant pushback or criticism of his guests such as Shapiro, Milo, Owen's, and the like to their faces?
Because it's been a few pages since I asked and all we've gotten is some rebuffing of a flat-earther UFC guy.
Rogan mostly doesn't push back unless it's about something he knows a lot about or feels strongly about. That basically means martial arts, drug use and lately hunting. Outside of these areas, Rogan is pretty much only a comfortable person to talk too. That's how the show started. That is his stated goal for it.
There was some push back against Eddie Bravo, because they're very close personal friends and the flat earth stick got annoying, but Rogan specifically isn't there to call out his guests - for good or for ill.
I'll add this as well: Rogan brings this up a lot. I think this is more important than him saying "I don't know what I'm talking about. Don't listen to me." His methodology and skills are something he makes the listener aware of.
His show might really be a gateway to the alt right. It seems to me it should be a very weak one indeed.
A lot of these "but what if they so much as hear Shapiro" arguments rely on an assumption that we fundamentally cant be more appealing than them which is p. depressing because have you ever heard that guy talk?
right wing thought is not a mysterious brain poison that you pour into someone's ear and they become corrupted
obviously it works on some people but you can't actually go around talking about an entire demographic of listeners like they're stupid babies in need of protecting from dangerous ideas. it is actually possible to just reason with people
You acknowledge that right-wing and alt-right punditry works on some people.
When you introduce five or six million new people to a venue that pushes right-wing and alt-right punditry, it is going to work on some of them.
That's not treating an entire demographic of listeners like they're stupid babies, it's just a consequence of statistics.
These flippant remarks that try to reframe the argument against legitimizing Rogan from "bringing new audiences into an alt-right recruitment platform will broaden that platform's harmful reach" into some sort of absurd 'oh no if you put a bunch of bernie bros in front of Alex Jones every single one will instantly turn into uniformed Nazis in a flash of light and smoke like the Ark of the Covenant running in reverse' Doom Prophecy are insultingly reductive.
statistically, if you do anything, something bad might happen. if you say billionaires are bad at least one person is going to become a stalinist. who cares? i personally am willing to roll the dice on more rogan listeners getting turned onto socialism than bernie bros becoming sandy hook conspiracy guys
Man, responding to 'you're reducing things to absurdity so you can argue against a strawman' by literally saying 'anything could happen when you do anything, it's impossible to connect actions to consequences' is doubling down hard on the reductivity plan. You can't throw gas on a fire and then stand around going 'How did the fire get bigger? No one can really say. What happens when you throw gas on a fire? This, too, is unknowable. The universe is chaotic and random!'
When you introduce five or six million new people to a venue that pushes right-wing and alt-right punditry, it is going to work on some of them.
Okay. How many? Because if the answer is "Five," I genuinely don't care.
Is there a number where you would care? What is it? What if the answer is five thousand? Are you conceding that Rogan is an alt-right gateway, that introducing large numbers of people to his show will set some of those people on the path to alt-right radicalization (and make it harder to reach those already on that path), and hoping to make this debate turn on the question of how many alt-right converts is an acceptable cost to pitch Bernie Sanders to a given Rogan listener?
+10
Options
No-QuarterNothing To FearBut Fear ItselfRegistered Userregular
So we are going to concede the point that Rogan offers any form of significant pushback or criticism of his guests such as Shapiro, Milo, Owen's, and the like to their faces?
Because it's been a few pages since I asked and all we've gotten is some rebuffing of a flat-earther UFC guy.
Rogan mostly doesn't push back unless it's about something he knows a lot about or feels strongly about. That basically means martial arts, drug use and lately hunting. Outside of these areas, Rogan is pretty much only a comfortable person to talk too. That's how the show started. That is his stated goal for it.
There was some push back against Eddie Bravo, because they're very close personal friends and the flat earth stick got annoying, but Rogan specifically isn't there to call out his guests - for good or for ill.
This isn't reassuring given the Seth Rich and reverse racism crap I and others have brought up.
With that said, the main issue is, again not Rogan, or Sanders appearing, but Sanders going on there and not making a mention of the problems with Rogan's podcast.
0
Options
MonwynApathy's a tragedy, and boredom is a crime.A little bit of everything, all of the time.Registered Userregular
When you introduce five or six million new people to a venue that pushes right-wing and alt-right punditry, it is going to work on some of them.
Okay. How many? Because if the answer is "Five," I genuinely don't care.
Is there a number where you would care? What is it? What if the answer is five thousand? Are you conceding that Rogan is an alt-right gateway, that introducing large numbers of people to his show will set some of those people on the path to alt-right radicalization (and make it harder to reach those already on that path), and hoping to make this debate turn on the question of how many alt-right converts is an acceptable cost to pitch Bernie Sanders to a given Rogan listener?
If 1/1000 of people who are exposed to the Alt-Right are fated to fall down that rabbit hole we are already fucked. We'd also expect Trump to poll at better-than-35% approval.
I concede that some percentage of people who are exposed to the Alt-Right, including through Rogan, will end up in that hole. I think the odds of any given individual doing so is so infinitesimal that it's hard to give a shit about him while Fox News plays in airports and dentist's offices. I think that people who are amenable to Sanders or Warren are unlikely to join that ideology, and that moral panic over their appearance is therefore more out of virtue signaling than genuine concern.
So we are going to concede the point that Rogan offers any form of significant pushback or criticism of his guests such as Shapiro, Milo, Owen's, and the like to their faces?
Because it's been a few pages since I asked and all we've gotten is some rebuffing of a flat-earther UFC guy.
Rogan mostly doesn't push back unless it's about something he knows a lot about or feels strongly about. That basically means martial arts, drug use and lately hunting. Outside of these areas, Rogan is pretty much only a comfortable person to talk too. That's how the show started. That is his stated goal for it.
There was some push back against Eddie Bravo, because they're very close personal friends and the flat earth stick got annoying, but Rogan specifically isn't there to call out his guests - for good or for ill.
This isn't reassuring given the Seth Rich and reverse racism crap I and others have brought up.
With that said, the main issue is, again not Rogan, or Sanders appearing, but Sanders going on there and not making a mention of the problems with Rogan's podcast.
The thing is, Sanders couldn't take advantage of and criticize the JRE for being a softball venue for guests in the same interview. As someone with an active political campaign, it makes sense that he would choose to take advantage rather than criticize because he needs to reach people right now. Other voices can and should take up (and have taken up) the critical project.
+1
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
I get that Rogan might be a bit of a git, and it’s pretty clear that some of his guests are right bastards; but I’m not seeing what will be accomplished by ceding that space to the alt-right types will actually accomplish. It won’t starve him of guests, since most of them don’t seem to be super political. He seems to be doing pretty well on listeners and the numbers seem to be back to normal, so it’s not like Sanders got people listening for the class warfare and now they’re sticking around for the misogyny and racism. All I can see happening is that his available guest list tilts more to the right and as a result his audience gets more ass in their ears.
This isn’t Fox where you’d have to be worried about the format and hostile hosts and audience nor is it a Klan rally or similar where they’d kill you as soon as listen to what you have to say. It’s a relatively regular dude who has a base audience of two to three million people willing to listen to whatever is on tap. Democrats can either take advantage or not.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
So we are going to concede the point that Rogan offers any form of significant pushback or criticism of his guests such as Shapiro, Milo, Owen's, and the like to their faces?
Because it's been a few pages since I asked and all we've gotten is some rebuffing of a flat-earther UFC guy.
Rogan mostly doesn't push back unless it's about something he knows a lot about or feels strongly about. That basically means martial arts, drug use and lately hunting. Outside of these areas, Rogan is pretty much only a comfortable person to talk too. That's how the show started. That is his stated goal for it.
There was some push back against Eddie Bravo, because they're very close personal friends and the flat earth stick got annoying, but Rogan specifically isn't there to call out his guests - for good or for ill.
This isn't reassuring given the Seth Rich and reverse racism crap I and others have brought up.
With that said, the main issue is, again not Rogan, or Sanders appearing, but Sanders going on there and not making a mention of the problems with Rogan's podcast.
Thats because you think the Rogan podcast is something that it isnt
What it IS is an open discussion in a civilized manner for anyone on the show. Sometimes those are great people, sometimes they are boring, sometimes they are shitheads. Joe Rogan attempts to treat everyone of his guests fair.
Why would Bernie waste his limited time getting into a side discussion with Rogan when he could use that time to state his case for Presidency?
So we are going to concede the point that Rogan offers any form of significant pushback or criticism of his guests such as Shapiro, Milo, Owen's, and the like to their faces?
Because it's been a few pages since I asked and all we've gotten is some rebuffing of a flat-earther UFC guy.
Rogan mostly doesn't push back unless it's about something he knows a lot about or feels strongly about. That basically means martial arts, drug use and lately hunting. Outside of these areas, Rogan is pretty much only a comfortable person to talk too. That's how the show started. That is his stated goal for it.
There was some push back against Eddie Bravo, because they're very close personal friends and the flat earth stick got annoying, but Rogan specifically isn't there to call out his guests - for good or for ill.
This isn't reassuring given the Seth Rich and reverse racism crap I and others have brought up.
With that said, the main issue is, again not Rogan, or Sanders appearing, but Sanders going on there and not making a mention of the problems with Rogan's podcast.
Thats because you think the Rogan podcast is something that it isnt
What it IS is an open discussion in a civilized manner for anyone on the show. Sometimes those are great people, sometimes they are boring, sometimes they are shitheads. Joe Rogan attempts to treat everyone of his guests fair.
Why would Bernie waste his limited time getting into a side discussion with Rogan when he could use that time to state his case for Presidency?
Rogan is not a neutral actor, having the guests he has is a choice, and that choice is part of who he is and what he promotes. His audience reflects it.
Regarding the bolded, Rogan is not a mistery and most people in this thread can see through it without needing to invest hundreds of hours into analizing every second of dead air, so the claim that people have the wrong impression or dont "get" the show is ridiculous.
Yes, with a quick verbal "boom." You take a man's peko, you deny him his dab, all that is left is to rise up and tear down the walls of Jericho with a ".....not!" -TexiKen
So we are going to concede the point that Rogan offers any form of significant pushback or criticism of his guests such as Shapiro, Milo, Owen's, and the like to their faces?
Because it's been a few pages since I asked and all we've gotten is some rebuffing of a flat-earther UFC guy.
Rogan mostly doesn't push back unless it's about something he knows a lot about or feels strongly about. That basically means martial arts, drug use and lately hunting. Outside of these areas, Rogan is pretty much only a comfortable person to talk too. That's how the show started. That is his stated goal for it.
There was some push back against Eddie Bravo, because they're very close personal friends and the flat earth stick got annoying, but Rogan specifically isn't there to call out his guests - for good or for ill.
This isn't reassuring given the Seth Rich and reverse racism crap I and others have brought up.
With that said, the main issue is, again not Rogan, or Sanders appearing, but Sanders going on there and not making a mention of the problems with Rogan's podcast.
Thats because you think the Rogan podcast is something that it isnt
What it IS is an open discussion in a civilized manner for anyone on the show. Sometimes those are great people, sometimes they are boring, sometimes they are shitheads. Joe Rogan attempts to treat everyone of his guests fair.
Why would Bernie waste his limited time getting into a side discussion with Rogan when he could use that time to state his case for Presidency?
Rogan is not a neutral actor, having the guests he has is a choice, and that choice is part of who he is and what he promotes. His audience reflects it.
Regarding the bolded, Rogan is not a mistery and most people in this thread can see through it without needing to invest hundreds of hours into analizing every second of dead air, so the claim that people have the wrong impression or dont "get" the show is ridiculous.
Sure, i mean why listen to someone who HAS listened to hours and hours of the show, when you can cherry pick edits off youtube and solidify your preconceived notion!
So we are going to concede the point that Rogan offers any form of significant pushback or criticism of his guests such as Shapiro, Milo, Owen's, and the like to their faces?
Because it's been a few pages since I asked and all we've gotten is some rebuffing of a flat-earther UFC guy.
Rogan mostly doesn't push back unless it's about something he knows a lot about or feels strongly about. That basically means martial arts, drug use and lately hunting. Outside of these areas, Rogan is pretty much only a comfortable person to talk too. That's how the show started. That is his stated goal for it.
There was some push back against Eddie Bravo, because they're very close personal friends and the flat earth stick got annoying, but Rogan specifically isn't there to call out his guests - for good or for ill.
This isn't reassuring given the Seth Rich and reverse racism crap I and others have brought up.
With that said, the main issue is, again not Rogan, or Sanders appearing, but Sanders going on there and not making a mention of the problems with Rogan's podcast.
Thats because you think the Rogan podcast is something that it isnt
What it IS is an open discussion in a civilized manner for anyone on the show. Sometimes those are great people, sometimes they are boring, sometimes they are shitheads. Joe Rogan attempts to treat everyone of his guests fair.
Why would Bernie waste his limited time getting into a side discussion with Rogan when he could use that time to state his case for Presidency?
I thought you would have picked up on this already, but that's part of the problem we have with his show! You don't get to just pal around with white supremacists and xenophobic bigots like they're the same as a reality show winner or a Democratic presidential nominee, because the things they're promoting aren't equivocal!
But I even disagree with the assertion that he treats his guests "fairly," because treating someone "fairly" can still involve questioning someone on their positions so that they have to actually elaborate on and defend their positions.
Here's Ben Shapiro being "treated fairly" by a (politically conservative) reporter on the BBC, and Ben Shapiro reacting like a petulant child at the temerity of being asked to explain/defend, uh, anything in his book: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VixqvOcK8E
So we are going to concede the point that Rogan offers any form of significant pushback or criticism of his guests such as Shapiro, Milo, Owen's, and the like to their faces?
Because it's been a few pages since I asked and all we've gotten is some rebuffing of a flat-earther UFC guy.
Rogan mostly doesn't push back unless it's about something he knows a lot about or feels strongly about. That basically means martial arts, drug use and lately hunting. Outside of these areas, Rogan is pretty much only a comfortable person to talk too. That's how the show started. That is his stated goal for it.
There was some push back against Eddie Bravo, because they're very close personal friends and the flat earth stick got annoying, but Rogan specifically isn't there to call out his guests - for good or for ill.
This isn't reassuring given the Seth Rich and reverse racism crap I and others have brought up.
With that said, the main issue is, again not Rogan, or Sanders appearing, but Sanders going on there and not making a mention of the problems with Rogan's podcast.
The thing is, Sanders couldn't take advantage of and criticize the JRE for being a softball venue for guests in the same interview. As someone with an active political campaign, it makes sense that he would choose to take advantage rather than criticize because he needs to reach people right now. Other voices can and should take up (and have taken up) the critical project.
Well, that's kind of just restating the the premise of the discussion, right? I haven't seen anybody pushing hard on the idea that Sanders taking advantage of a venue that softballs absolutely anyone is politically disadvantageous for Sanders. The question is that if taking advantage of a venue that will softball and humanize you also amplifies and legitimizes that venue when it then turns around and also softballs and humanizes neonazis, then is doing so bad for society even if it's good for your political campaign? Is it okay for a candidate to boost his poll numbers if the means he uses to do so also aid the spread of the alt-right?
Answering an ethics question by just talking about the needs of a given political strategy kind of sidesteps the whole conversation.
When you introduce five or six million new people to a venue that pushes right-wing and alt-right punditry, it is going to work on some of them.
Okay. How many? Because if the answer is "Five," I genuinely don't care.
Is there a number where you would care? What is it? What if the answer is five thousand? Are you conceding that Rogan is an alt-right gateway, that introducing large numbers of people to his show will set some of those people on the path to alt-right radicalization (and make it harder to reach those already on that path), and hoping to make this debate turn on the question of how many alt-right converts is an acceptable cost to pitch Bernie Sanders to a given Rogan listener?
If 1/1000 of people who are exposed to the Alt-Right are fated to fall down that rabbit hole we are already fucked. We'd also expect Trump to poll at better-than-35% approval.
So we are going to concede the point that Rogan offers any form of significant pushback or criticism of his guests such as Shapiro, Milo, Owen's, and the like to their faces?
Because it's been a few pages since I asked and all we've gotten is some rebuffing of a flat-earther UFC guy.
Rogan mostly doesn't push back unless it's about something he knows a lot about or feels strongly about. That basically means martial arts, drug use and lately hunting. Outside of these areas, Rogan is pretty much only a comfortable person to talk too. That's how the show started. That is his stated goal for it.
There was some push back against Eddie Bravo, because they're very close personal friends and the flat earth stick got annoying, but Rogan specifically isn't there to call out his guests - for good or for ill.
This isn't reassuring given the Seth Rich and reverse racism crap I and others have brought up.
With that said, the main issue is, again not Rogan, or Sanders appearing, but Sanders going on there and not making a mention of the problems with Rogan's podcast.
The thing is, Sanders couldn't take advantage of and criticize the JRE for being a softball venue for guests in the same interview. As someone with an active political campaign, it makes sense that he would choose to take advantage rather than criticize because he needs to reach people right now. Other voices can and should take up (and have taken up) the critical project.
Well, that's kind of just restating the the premise of the discussion, right? I haven't seen anybody pushing hard on the idea that Sanders taking advantage of a venue that softballs absolutely anyone is politically disadvantageous for Sanders. The question is that if taking advantage of a venue that will softball and humanize you also amplifies and legitimizes that venue when it then turns around and also softballs and humanizes neonazis, then is doing so bad for society even if it's good for your political campaign? Is it okay for a candidate to boost his poll numbers if the means he uses to do so also aid the spread of the alt-right?
Answering an ethics question by just talking about the needs of a given political strategy kind of sidesteps the whole conversation.
When you introduce five or six million new people to a venue that pushes right-wing and alt-right punditry, it is going to work on some of them.
Okay. How many? Because if the answer is "Five," I genuinely don't care.
Is there a number where you would care? What is it? What if the answer is five thousand? Are you conceding that Rogan is an alt-right gateway, that introducing large numbers of people to his show will set some of those people on the path to alt-right radicalization (and make it harder to reach those already on that path), and hoping to make this debate turn on the question of how many alt-right converts is an acceptable cost to pitch Bernie Sanders to a given Rogan listener?
If 1/1000 of people who are exposed to the Alt-Right are fated to fall down that rabbit hole we are already fucked. We'd also expect Trump to poll at better-than-35% approval.
Right, I wanted to restate the premise of the discussion so that I could address points like this one "if taking advantage of a venue that will softball and humanize you also amplifies and legitimizes that venue" because to me that is a really big "if" and not something I'm prepared to just take for granted.
0
Options
No-QuarterNothing To FearBut Fear ItselfRegistered Userregular
So we are going to concede the point that Rogan offers any form of significant pushback or criticism of his guests such as Shapiro, Milo, Owen's, and the like to their faces?
Because it's been a few pages since I asked and all we've gotten is some rebuffing of a flat-earther UFC guy.
Rogan mostly doesn't push back unless it's about something he knows a lot about or feels strongly about. That basically means martial arts, drug use and lately hunting. Outside of these areas, Rogan is pretty much only a comfortable person to talk too. That's how the show started. That is his stated goal for it.
There was some push back against Eddie Bravo, because they're very close personal friends and the flat earth stick got annoying, but Rogan specifically isn't there to call out his guests - for good or for ill.
This isn't reassuring given the Seth Rich and reverse racism crap I and others have brought up.
With that said, the main issue is, again not Rogan, or Sanders appearing, but Sanders going on there and not making a mention of the problems with Rogan's podcast.
Thats because you think the Rogan podcast is something that it isnt
A softball venue that, regardless of any and all credible guests or discussions it has, also enables bigots and bad faith actors to spew their unfiltered venom without any significant pushback from a credulous and ignorant host.
Is that not what it is?
What it IS is an open discussion in a civilized manner for anyone on the show. Sometimes those are great people, sometimes they are boring, sometimes they are shitheads. Joe Rogan attempts to treat everyone of his guests fair.
Bigots and bad faith actors don't deserve an open discussion or a fair shake.
Why would Bernie waste his limited time getting into a side discussion with Rogan when he could use that time to state his case for Presidency?
I don't think you intended it to sound this way, but I really don't think calling someone out on the fact that they're a safe harbor for bigots and charlatans is "wasting time".
Posts
It doesnt have to work on everyone to be an effective method. Buuut their messages do have inherent “advantages” compared to the liberal ones in that the message of “actually you dont need to do anything its the other that is the problem” is more seductive than “its hard work to be a better person but we all have to change” and preventing people from hearing it is a gain for liberals
Not “just because they have been on them” but because the platform normalizes and humanizes them without pushback.
I still dont understand. I can vote for sanders without thinking that Sanders going on Rogan was a good idea.
I dont see anyone suggesting Bernie should be excommunicated for going in Rogan or even that you should not support Bernie as a result, just criticized... which is fine
It doesnt matter. And defenses like this support why it doesnt. Youre here, very really, defending his content because you think he doesn’t believe it.
What if you think Coulter didnt believe her content? Or Shapiro? Or any of the others? Is it OK for them to be racist because you dont believe thwt they are racist in their hearts?
The answer is that what they believe doesnt matter. Because you cant know that. Its only their content that matters. And the content is vile.
The actual lesson being that giving people like Jones a platform actually does do harm even if you’re not taking him seriously
He wasn’t given a platform. He did what most people did, started something and enough people were intrigued. What do you suggest? Ban conspiracy theories, being a public loon?
I’m just taking Spool’s word for it but it sounds like mainstream morning radio gave him a platform
You acknowledge that right-wing and alt-right punditry works on some people.
When you introduce five or six million new people to a venue that pushes right-wing and alt-right punditry, it is going to work on some of them.
That's not treating an entire demographic of listeners like they're stupid babies, it's just a consequence of statistics.
These flippant remarks that try to reframe the argument against legitimizing Rogan from "bringing new audiences into an alt-right recruitment platform will broaden that platform's harmful reach" into some sort of absurd 'oh no if you put a bunch of bernie bros in front of Alex Jones every single one will instantly turn into uniformed Nazis in a flash of light and smoke like the Ark of the Covenant running in reverse' Doom Prophecy are insultingly reductive.
What I mean is no one just gave it to him. No one walked up one day and said “here’s a radio station” out of the blue. He wasn’t living an ordinary life when a man knocked on his door and offered him a radio station. Like anyone else, he started small and grew his following and people picked him up accordingly. That’s how these things work and I’m not sure what your solution is. If enough people find conspiracy theories intriguing there will be people providing them. Short of banning them outright (which, lol) I dunno what you want to do.
Crazies gonna crazy about Chem trails, aliens, gay Illuminati bodybuilders, 9/11, whatever. The nature of their obsession means that suppression is equal to confirmation. That’s why mockery is best. Do not give them that shred of legitimacy they crave. It’s counterproductive.
Almost nobody is going to go shoot up a pizza parlor because Alex Jones.
We still try to limit the harm nuts cause through warning labels and not putting them everywhere.
What precautions are we taking about Alex Jones?
statistically, if you do anything, something bad might happen. if you say billionaires are bad at least one person is going to become a stalinist. who cares? i personally am willing to roll the dice on more rogan listeners getting turned onto socialism than bernie bros becoming sandy hook conspiracy guys
Julian Castro is buying ad time on Fox News to talk directly to the president. I'm kinda surprised fox is running it. I'm not wild about directly giving money to fox, but all the same I'm glad there is some counter programming going on.
Who cares? Look at the threads with the various white supremacist and Incel killers, look at how white supremacy has infected and twisted the government into before and with Trump, look at how Trumpism has affected American culture and its institutions, look at the victims of the conspiracy theorists (Alex Jones/Anti-vaxx movement). Do you care about that? All this becomes more mainstream with what Rogan's doing. He may as well be another Fox News talking head with those conservative figurehead interviews.
Because it's been a few pages since I asked and all we've gotten is some rebuffing of a flat-earther UFC guy.
I've got this.
I may agree with Rogan, while Owens comes out looking like the smarter between the two in this conversation despite her argument being bullshit. He's more concerned about chilling out and asking "why" than countering her with a deeper level of science. And he starts off ignoring her comment about Globalists.
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.
Stop being a sarcastic dick or don't post at all.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
You could just say "No, I dont."
This shouldn't be that hard to find if it exists.
Thank you Harry, I'll watch this when I'm not at work.
Are you trying to make a case for yourself and the people you already agree with here, or do you want to convince somebody? Because this stuff here is not convincing or meaningful unless the reader already agrees with you.
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.
What don't you agree with in my post? How is what I wrote not meaningful or convincing?
I can't really agree or disagree with a statement like "Look at the threads with the various white supremacist and Incel killers" but I looked at those threads and having done so I do disagree with statements like "All this becomes more mainstream with what Rogan's doing" and "He may as well be another Fox News talking head with those conservative figurehead interviews." It seems like you're taking complicated phenomena with a causal story that can't be summed up in a couple of sentences and making these sweeping judgments based on a limited set of facts. I'm right there with you when the criticism is, for example, "Rogan's long-form softball conversational interviews are bad when they give fascists and bigots an opportunity to whitewash their ideas" but then you go and say something like "He may as well be another Fox News talking head" and you lose me because that seems to be ignoring ways that Rogan is obviously not like a Fox News talking head. I can't tell you that its wrong for the similarities to loom larger in your mind than the differences, but I remain unconvinced that I ought to think about him the same way you do.
Rogen being compared to Fox news talking heads or whatever works in the context of him being part of an ecosystem, but it will definitely fall apart if you try to make a 1:1 comparison expecting to find a carbon copy.
Okay. How many? Because if the answer is "Five," I genuinely don't care.
Rogan mostly doesn't push back unless it's about something he knows a lot about or feels strongly about. That basically means martial arts, drug use and lately hunting. Outside of these areas, Rogan is pretty much only a comfortable person to talk too. That's how the show started. That is his stated goal for it.
There was some push back against Eddie Bravo, because they're very close personal friends and the flat earth stick got annoying, but Rogan specifically isn't there to call out his guests - for good or for ill.
Spoiled for long:
Twitch: KoopahTroopah - Steam: Koopah
I'll add this as well: Rogan brings this up a lot. I think this is more important than him saying "I don't know what I'm talking about. Don't listen to me." His methodology and skills are something he makes the listener aware of.
His show might really be a gateway to the alt right. It seems to me it should be a very weak one indeed.
Man, responding to 'you're reducing things to absurdity so you can argue against a strawman' by literally saying 'anything could happen when you do anything, it's impossible to connect actions to consequences' is doubling down hard on the reductivity plan. You can't throw gas on a fire and then stand around going 'How did the fire get bigger? No one can really say. What happens when you throw gas on a fire? This, too, is unknowable. The universe is chaotic and random!'
Is there a number where you would care? What is it? What if the answer is five thousand? Are you conceding that Rogan is an alt-right gateway, that introducing large numbers of people to his show will set some of those people on the path to alt-right radicalization (and make it harder to reach those already on that path), and hoping to make this debate turn on the question of how many alt-right converts is an acceptable cost to pitch Bernie Sanders to a given Rogan listener?
This isn't reassuring given the Seth Rich and reverse racism crap I and others have brought up.
With that said, the main issue is, again not Rogan, or Sanders appearing, but Sanders going on there and not making a mention of the problems with Rogan's podcast.
If 1/1000 of people who are exposed to the Alt-Right are fated to fall down that rabbit hole we are already fucked. We'd also expect Trump to poll at better-than-35% approval.
I concede that some percentage of people who are exposed to the Alt-Right, including through Rogan, will end up in that hole. I think the odds of any given individual doing so is so infinitesimal that it's hard to give a shit about him while Fox News plays in airports and dentist's offices. I think that people who are amenable to Sanders or Warren are unlikely to join that ideology, and that moral panic over their appearance is therefore more out of virtue signaling than genuine concern.
The thing is, Sanders couldn't take advantage of and criticize the JRE for being a softball venue for guests in the same interview. As someone with an active political campaign, it makes sense that he would choose to take advantage rather than criticize because he needs to reach people right now. Other voices can and should take up (and have taken up) the critical project.
This isn’t Fox where you’d have to be worried about the format and hostile hosts and audience nor is it a Klan rally or similar where they’d kill you as soon as listen to what you have to say. It’s a relatively regular dude who has a base audience of two to three million people willing to listen to whatever is on tap. Democrats can either take advantage or not.
Thats because you think the Rogan podcast is something that it isnt
What it IS is an open discussion in a civilized manner for anyone on the show. Sometimes those are great people, sometimes they are boring, sometimes they are shitheads. Joe Rogan attempts to treat everyone of his guests fair.
Why would Bernie waste his limited time getting into a side discussion with Rogan when he could use that time to state his case for Presidency?
Rogan is not a neutral actor, having the guests he has is a choice, and that choice is part of who he is and what he promotes. His audience reflects it.
Regarding the bolded, Rogan is not a mistery and most people in this thread can see through it without needing to invest hundreds of hours into analizing every second of dead air, so the claim that people have the wrong impression or dont "get" the show is ridiculous.
Sure, i mean why listen to someone who HAS listened to hours and hours of the show, when you can cherry pick edits off youtube and solidify your preconceived notion!
I thought you would have picked up on this already, but that's part of the problem we have with his show! You don't get to just pal around with white supremacists and xenophobic bigots like they're the same as a reality show winner or a Democratic presidential nominee, because the things they're promoting aren't equivocal!
But I even disagree with the assertion that he treats his guests "fairly," because treating someone "fairly" can still involve questioning someone on their positions so that they have to actually elaborate on and defend their positions.
Here's Ben Shapiro being "treated fairly" by a (politically conservative) reporter on the BBC, and Ben Shapiro reacting like a petulant child at the temerity of being asked to explain/defend, uh, anything in his book:
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Well, that's kind of just restating the the premise of the discussion, right? I haven't seen anybody pushing hard on the idea that Sanders taking advantage of a venue that softballs absolutely anyone is politically disadvantageous for Sanders. The question is that if taking advantage of a venue that will softball and humanize you also amplifies and legitimizes that venue when it then turns around and also softballs and humanizes neonazis, then is doing so bad for society even if it's good for your political campaign? Is it okay for a candidate to boost his poll numbers if the means he uses to do so also aid the spread of the alt-right?
Answering an ethics question by just talking about the needs of a given political strategy kind of sidesteps the whole conversation.
Well have I got some bad news for you.
Right, I wanted to restate the premise of the discussion so that I could address points like this one "if taking advantage of a venue that will softball and humanize you also amplifies and legitimizes that venue" because to me that is a really big "if" and not something I'm prepared to just take for granted.
A softball venue that, regardless of any and all credible guests or discussions it has, also enables bigots and bad faith actors to spew their unfiltered venom without any significant pushback from a credulous and ignorant host.
Is that not what it is?
Bigots and bad faith actors don't deserve an open discussion or a fair shake.
I don't think you intended it to sound this way, but I really don't think calling someone out on the fact that they're a safe harbor for bigots and charlatans is "wasting time".