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.
I doubt you intended your post to sound this way, but it reads like "Bernie doesn't have time to stand up to bigotry, he has a campaign to run!"[/quote]
It sounds like he thinks the audience is more receptive to a policy message than being lectured on listening to bad people.
Which likely is true so
At the end of the day, Bernie’s message is fundamentally not incompatible with white supremacy or conspiracy theories
There are other candidates who could not go on Rogan and talk for an hour about their platform without discussing the alt-right or push back against anti-immigrant sentiment
It sounds like he thinks the audience is more receptive to a policy message than being lectured on listening to bad people.
Which likely is true so
At the end of the day, Bernie’s message is fundamentally not incompatible with white supremacy or conspiracy theories
There are other candidates who could not go on Rogan and talk for an hour about their platform without discussing the alt-right or push back against anti-immigrant sentiment
Bernie is not one of those candidates
Man, Ive got bad news for you re: liberalism
+2
Options
jmcdonaldI voted, did you?DC(ish)Registered Userregular
It sounds like he thinks the audience is more receptive to a policy message than being lectured on listening to bad people.
Which likely is true so
At the end of the day, Bernie’s message is fundamentally not incompatible with white supremacy or conspiracy theories
There are other candidates who could not go on Rogan and talk for an hour about their platform without discussing the alt-right or push back against anti-immigrant sentiment
Bernie is not one of those candidates
When all you have is a class-war hammer, everything looks like a nail.
It sounds like he thinks the audience is more receptive to a policy message than being lectured on listening to bad people.
Which likely is true so
At the end of the day, Bernie’s message is fundamentally not incompatible with white supremacy or conspiracy theories
There are other candidates who could not go on Rogan and talk for an hour about their platform without discussing the alt-right or push back against anti-immigrant sentiment
Bernie is not one of those candidates
When all you have is a class-war hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Sanders spoke about race issues several times in that interview
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.
I doubt you intended your post to sound this way, but it reads like "Bernie doesn't have time to stand up to bigotry, he has a campaign to run!"
It is kind of strange that the one word you put in italics is a word I never used. My point was more that there are certain points or arguments that can't be made simultaneously by the same person because making the one point undermines the value of the other. It's not a question of time, it's that saying "your podcast sucks because your softball interviews gave too much of a voice to bigots, now give me a softball interview" is obviously ridiculous, and I'm not going to fault the person running an active political campaign for just taking the softball interview.
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.
I doubt you intended your post to sound this way, but it reads like "Bernie doesn't have time to stand up to bigotry, he has a campaign to run!"
It is kind of strange that the one word you put in italics is a word I never used. My point was more that there are certain points or arguments that can't be made simultaneously by the same person because making the one point undermines the value of the other. It's not a question of time, it's that saying "your podcast sucks because your softball interviews gave too much of a voice to bigots, now give me a softball interview" is obviously ridiculous, and I'm not going to fault the person running an active political campaign for just taking the softball interview.
You are correct and I apologize. I confused your post with with Ninjeff. I'll go edit the other post.
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.
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.
My issue, then, is whether or not it is ethical or worthwhile for Sanders to reap the benefits of patronizing Rogan's show (which also benefits Rogan), while sidestepping the problems his appearance would cause or exacerbate.
No-Quarter on
0
Options
WhiteZinfandelYour insidesLet me show you themRegistered 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?
No. People are rarely spewing unfiltered venom on Rogan's podcast. When they do, Rogan doesn't just sit there passively. We've had clips posted of him pushing back on people. If he doesn't do so "significantly" enough for you then okay, but the above description is an exaggeration of his passivity and his guests', uh, venom.
+2
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?
No. People are rarely spewing unfiltered venom on Rogan's podcast. When they do, Rogan doesn't just sit there passively. We've had clips posted of him pushing back on people. If he doesn't do so "significantly" enough for you then okay, but the above description is an exaggeration of his passivity and his guests', uh, venom.
You've got me, I should have addressed that better.
People like Petersen or Shapiro don't just get up there and start dropping slurs, that's why they are so insidious. A big part of their schtick involves laying a foundation of credibility and authority.
Clean your room, speak clearly, show up 15 minutes early to a job interview. This way, you've already warmed up to them as people and are more likely to take them seriously when it comes time for the PragerU videos. A spoonful of sugar to help the bigotry go down.
e-typos, damn fingers
No-Quarter on
+13
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
A 2019 American story in three acts
1: Andrew Yang publicly supports a petition for Joe Rogan to moderate a Dem debate
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.
My issue, then, is whether or not it is ethical or worthwhile for Sanders to reap the benefits of patronizing Rogan's show (which also benefits Rogan), while sidestepping the problems his appearance would cause or exacerbate.
I'm not prepared to conclude that it was unethical, because I think politicians ought to take their message to places where it might be received reasonably well, and because available evidence shows that the Sanders interview was received well. I'm not prepared to conclude anything at this time about whether it was worthwhile because all of the material evidence that could lead me to one conclusion or another hasn't emerged yet. I will take a cautiously optimistic perspective on the basis of comments I've seen from people claiming to have had an unfavourable opinion of Sanders before the interview, and claiming to now have a more favourable view.
+2
Options
WhiteZinfandelYour insidesLet me show you themRegistered Userregular
"Person suffers harassment on twitter for criticizing famous person"
Well, yeah. That's how it goes, unfortunately.
The causal link that makes it Yang or Rogan's fault has yet to be demonstrated, though.
No no no, Twitter is known to be a great forum to exchange ideas and grow. It's how everyone uses it.
psn: PhasenWeeple
+2
Options
No-QuarterNothing To FearBut Fear ItselfRegistered Userregular
.
0
Options
MortiousThe Nightmare BeginsMove to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
She does address that in her last tweet, random assholes on the internet respond differently than the internet hate brigade, that organize and go beyond just replying with angry tweets. And a much smaller critical mass of people are needed for it to escalate versus something like the former.
Though I am just taking her at her word that Yang has a White Supremacist following.
She does address that in her last tweet, random assholes on the internet respond differently than the internet hate brigade, that organize and go beyond just replying with angry tweets. And a much smaller critical mass of people are needed for it to escalate versus something like the former.
Though I am just taking her at her word that Yang has a White Supremacist following.
Isn’t Yang the 4chan /pol candidate? (Edit: other than Trump of course)
I don’t know that you need to take her at her word.
She does address that in her last tweet, random assholes on the internet respond differently than the internet hate brigade, that organize and go beyond just replying with angry tweets. And a much smaller critical mass of people are needed for it to escalate versus something like the former.
Though I am just taking her at her word that Yang has a White Supremacist following.
Isn’t Yang the 4chan /pol candidate? (Edit: other than Trump of course)
I don’t know that you need to take her at her word.
I mean he has some fans among them, but you dont break past 1% off of an image board.
+1
Options
Lord_AsmodeusgoeticSobriquet:Here is your magical cryptic riddle-tumour: I AM A TIME MACHINERegistered Userregular
She does address that in her last tweet, random assholes on the internet respond differently than the internet hate brigade, that organize and go beyond just replying with angry tweets. And a much smaller critical mass of people are needed for it to escalate versus something like the former.
Though I am just taking her at her word that Yang has a White Supremacist following.
Isn’t Yang the 4chan /pol candidate? (Edit: other than Trump of course)
I don’t know that you need to take her at her word.
I mean he has some fans among them, but you dont break past 1% off of an image board.
Vultures flock to carrion, but they don't usually make it.
Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. - Lincoln
She does address that in her last tweet, random assholes on the internet respond differently than the internet hate brigade, that organize and go beyond just replying with angry tweets. And a much smaller critical mass of people are needed for it to escalate versus something like the former.
Though I am just taking her at her word that Yang has a White Supremacist following.
Isn’t Yang the 4chan /pol candidate? (Edit: other than Trump of course)
I don’t know that you need to take her at her word.
I think a combination of Sam Harris' podcast and the Joe Rogan Experience is where is campaign took off?
Initially considered a long shot, Yang's campaign gained significant momentum in February 2019 following an appearance on the popular podcast The Joe Rogan Experience.
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Dear god I can't think of a worse candidate than someone coming from a 4chan fanbase.
+8
Options
jmcdonaldI voted, did you?DC(ish)Registered Userregular
She does address that in her last tweet, random assholes on the internet respond differently than the internet hate brigade, that organize and go beyond just replying with angry tweets. And a much smaller critical mass of people are needed for it to escalate versus something like the former.
Though I am just taking her at her word that Yang has a White Supremacist following.
Isn’t Yang the 4chan /pol candidate? (Edit: other than Trump of course)
I don’t know that you need to take her at her word.
I think a combination of Sam Harris' podcast and the Joe Rogan Experience is where is campaign took off?
Initially considered a long shot, Yang's campaign gained significant momentum in February 2019 following an appearance on the popular podcast The Joe Rogan Experience.
And look! It all comes back full circle.
Now we know why Sanders went on the Joe Rogan podcast. He’s trying to get some of that Andrew Yang bump.
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?
No. People are rarely spewing unfiltered venom on Rogan's podcast. When they do, Rogan doesn't just sit there passively. We've had clips posted of him pushing back on people. If he doesn't do so "significantly" enough for you then okay, but the above description is an exaggeration of his passivity and his guests', uh, venom.
Let's again remember that when you say 'we've had clips posted of him pushing back on people' you are referring to one singular clip you posted in which he tells a martial artist buddy of his that the earth is not flat. Nothing related to the alt-right, or to racism or bigotry, or anything that might actually be germane to the conversation.
"One time he told his flat-earther buddy that flat-earth theory was dumb" is not evidence of Rogan pushing back against the bad faith actors that make his show an entry point for alt-right messaging.
"Person suffers harassment on twitter for criticizing famous person"
Well, yeah. That's how it goes, unfortunately.
The causal link that makes it Yang or Rogan's fault has yet to be demonstrated, though.
If your fan base is filled with and acts like geese, that doesn't happen by accident.
If your fan base is thousands or millions of people, some of them are inevitably going to be geese no matter who you are or what you espouse.
I mean, ask Rinda.Vas@amgreetings.com what she thinks of fans of Penny Arcade.
Who and why?
In 2003, PA did a comic with a risque version of Strawberry Shortcake. American Greetings Cease & Desisted them and got the comic removed. Tycho responded with This post:
Strawberry Shortcake Comic Removed
If you have any questions about why, feel free to raise them with Rinda E. Vas, Corporate Counsel for the American Greetings Corporation.
We’re currently trying to figure out exactly how the concepts of Parody and Satire work to protect the sorts of things we do, to better arm ourselves against this kind of crap. Virtually everyone believes that what we did is protected, indeed, I believe that myself - but I’m not going to bet the farm on it until I have a bit more than Internet hearsay to back myself up with.
Her name in the post is a link that goes directly to her email address. This would probably fall under "inciting a harassment campaign" under 2019 standards.
Answering an ethics question by just talking about the needs of a given political strategy kind of sidesteps the whole conversation.
But the needs of this given political strategy are a matter of ethics.
This is not a neutral issue. Politics isn't a matter of equally valid interchangeable ideologies. By necessity, the argument implies that advantage for the campaign is good for society. If just promoting the platform is better than directly including criticism with it, then one should do that.
You can disagree about whether or not that is actually true, of course. Sure, maybe the negative consequences of being on Rogan outweigh the positives. But it is silly to act like the ethics question wasn't answered.
+1
Options
No-QuarterNothing To FearBut Fear ItselfRegistered Userregular
She does address that in her last tweet, random assholes on the internet respond differently than the internet hate brigade, that organize and go beyond just replying with angry tweets. And a much smaller critical mass of people are needed for it to escalate versus something like the former.
Though I am just taking her at her word that Yang has a White Supremacist following.
Isn’t Yang the 4chan /pol candidate? (Edit: other than Trump of course)
I don’t know that you need to take her at her word.
I mean he has some fans among them, but you dont break past 1% off of an image board.
Vultures flock to carrion, but they don't usually make it.
Not agreeing with this statement, but I am stealing it.
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered 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?
No. People are rarely spewing unfiltered venom on Rogan's podcast. When they do, Rogan doesn't just sit there passively. We've had clips posted of him pushing back on people. If he doesn't do so "significantly" enough for you then okay, but the above description is an exaggeration of his passivity and his guests', uh, venom.
You've got me, I should have addressed that better.
People like Petersen or Shapiro don't just get up there and start dropping slurs, that's why they are so insidious. A big part of their schtick involves laying a foundation of credibility and authority.
Clean your room, speak clearly, show up 15 minutes early to a job interview. This way, you've already warmed up to them as people and are more likely to take them seriously when it comes time for the PragerU videos. A spoonful of sugar to help the bigotry go down.
e-typos, damn fingers
I think this underlines how useless and counterproductive it would be for Sanders to bring up these problems on Rogan's podcast.
Guests on Rogan do not engage (afaik) in obvious open bigotry, so right of the bat you'd have to explain and discuss why this shit is problematic. Which, in my experience, isn't actually that easy. I know personally that Peterson is a fraud, but I can hardly convince my brother much less Rogan's entire audience. With study and preparation I could likely make a decent case, but even then it doesn't seem easy. I would rather leave it to people with knowledge and expertise on the topic.
Bernie is absolutely not an expert on this topic. Even if he boned up on some of it, bringing it up would likely result in a very boring, fruitless 3 hour discussion. So it's clearly better to not do it.
0
Options
WhiteZinfandelYour insidesLet me show you themRegistered 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?
No. People are rarely spewing unfiltered venom on Rogan's podcast. When they do, Rogan doesn't just sit there passively. We've had clips posted of him pushing back on people. If he doesn't do so "significantly" enough for you then okay, but the above description is an exaggeration of his passivity and his guests', uh, venom.
Let's again remember that when you say 'we've had clips posted of him pushing back on people' you are referring to one singular clip you posted in which he tells a martial artist buddy of his that the earth is not flat. Nothing related to the alt-right, or to racism or bigotry, or anything that might actually be germane to the conversation.
"One time he told his flat-earther buddy that flat-earth theory was dumb" is not evidence of Rogan pushing back against the bad faith actors that make his show an entry point for alt-right messaging.
Two videos. There was also one where he argued with Candace Owens upthread a bit.
Posts
I doubt you intended your post to sound this way, but it reads like "Bernie doesn't have time to stand up to bigotry, he has a campaign to run!"[/quote]
edit- Whooooops, responded to the wrong person
Which likely is true so
At the end of the day, Bernie’s message is fundamentally not incompatible with white supremacy or conspiracy theories
There are other candidates who could not go on Rogan and talk for an hour about their platform without discussing the alt-right or push back against anti-immigrant sentiment
Bernie is not one of those candidates
Man, Ive got bad news for you re: liberalism
When all you have is a class-war hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Sanders spoke about race issues several times in that interview
It is kind of strange that the one word you put in italics is a word I never used. My point was more that there are certain points or arguments that can't be made simultaneously by the same person because making the one point undermines the value of the other. It's not a question of time, it's that saying "your podcast sucks because your softball interviews gave too much of a voice to bigots, now give me a softball interview" is obviously ridiculous, and I'm not going to fault the person running an active political campaign for just taking the softball interview.
You are correct and I apologize. I confused your post with with Ninjeff. I'll go edit the other post.
My issue, then, is whether or not it is ethical or worthwhile for Sanders to reap the benefits of patronizing Rogan's show (which also benefits Rogan), while sidestepping the problems his appearance would cause or exacerbate.
No. People are rarely spewing unfiltered venom on Rogan's podcast. When they do, Rogan doesn't just sit there passively. We've had clips posted of him pushing back on people. If he doesn't do so "significantly" enough for you then okay, but the above description is an exaggeration of his passivity and his guests', uh, venom.
You've got me, I should have addressed that better.
People like Petersen or Shapiro don't just get up there and start dropping slurs, that's why they are so insidious. A big part of their schtick involves laying a foundation of credibility and authority.
Clean your room, speak clearly, show up 15 minutes early to a job interview. This way, you've already warmed up to them as people and are more likely to take them seriously when it comes time for the PragerU videos. A spoonful of sugar to help the bigotry go down.
e-typos, damn fingers
1: Andrew Yang publicly supports a petition for Joe Rogan to moderate a Dem debate
2: Random PhD student criticizes Yang for doing so
3: Student suffers online harassment by fans of Yang and/or Rogan
(4: Harassment victim is told this just the price of Twitter:
I'm not prepared to conclude that it was unethical, because I think politicians ought to take their message to places where it might be received reasonably well, and because available evidence shows that the Sanders interview was received well. I'm not prepared to conclude anything at this time about whether it was worthwhile because all of the material evidence that could lead me to one conclusion or another hasn't emerged yet. I will take a cautiously optimistic perspective on the basis of comments I've seen from people claiming to have had an unfavourable opinion of Sanders before the interview, and claiming to now have a more favourable view.
Well, yeah. That's how it goes, unfortunately.
The causal link that makes it Yang or Rogan's fault has yet to be demonstrated, though.
If your fan base is filled with and acts like geese, that doesn't happen by accident.
I think some assholes on twitter should not be taken as a representative cross section
If your fan base is thousands or millions of people, some of them are inevitably going to be geese no matter who you are or what you espouse.
Though I am just taking her at her word that Yang has a White Supremacist following.
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
Isn’t Yang the 4chan /pol candidate? (Edit: other than Trump of course)
I don’t know that you need to take her at her word.
I mean he has some fans among them, but you dont break past 1% off of an image board.
Vultures flock to carrion, but they don't usually make it.
I think a combination of Sam Harris' podcast and the Joe Rogan Experience is where is campaign took off?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/magazine/wp/2019/06/10/feature/random-man-runs-for-president-the-odd-saga-of-andrew-yang-explained/
And look! It all comes back full circle.
Now we know why Sanders went on the Joe Rogan podcast. He’s trying to get some of that Andrew Yang bump.
Let's again remember that when you say 'we've had clips posted of him pushing back on people' you are referring to one singular clip you posted in which he tells a martial artist buddy of his that the earth is not flat. Nothing related to the alt-right, or to racism or bigotry, or anything that might actually be germane to the conversation.
"One time he told his flat-earther buddy that flat-earth theory was dumb" is not evidence of Rogan pushing back against the bad faith actors that make his show an entry point for alt-right messaging.
I mean, ask Rinda.Vas@amgreetings.com what she thinks of fans of Penny Arcade.
Who and why?
In 2003, PA did a comic with a risque version of Strawberry Shortcake. American Greetings Cease & Desisted them and got the comic removed. Tycho responded with This post:
Her name in the post is a link that goes directly to her email address. This would probably fall under "inciting a harassment campaign" under 2019 standards.
But the needs of this given political strategy are a matter of ethics.
This is not a neutral issue. Politics isn't a matter of equally valid interchangeable ideologies. By necessity, the argument implies that advantage for the campaign is good for society. If just promoting the platform is better than directly including criticism with it, then one should do that.
You can disagree about whether or not that is actually true, of course. Sure, maybe the negative consequences of being on Rogan outweigh the positives. But it is silly to act like the ethics question wasn't answered.
Not agreeing with this statement, but I am stealing it.
I think this underlines how useless and counterproductive it would be for Sanders to bring up these problems on Rogan's podcast.
Guests on Rogan do not engage (afaik) in obvious open bigotry, so right of the bat you'd have to explain and discuss why this shit is problematic. Which, in my experience, isn't actually that easy. I know personally that Peterson is a fraud, but I can hardly convince my brother much less Rogan's entire audience. With study and preparation I could likely make a decent case, but even then it doesn't seem easy. I would rather leave it to people with knowledge and expertise on the topic.
Bernie is absolutely not an expert on this topic. Even if he boned up on some of it, bringing it up would likely result in a very boring, fruitless 3 hour discussion. So it's clearly better to not do it.
Two videos. There was also one where he argued with Candace Owens upthread a bit.
There is a recent JRE clip relevant to this discussion. 2:40 on.