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.
Rogan's being a Fox taking head because he's humanising, normalising and giving softball interviews to the bad actors on those very same conservative networks. He may have his own style but it remains the same outcome by signal boosting the conservative All-Stars.
You realize the "Fox news" people will accuse Rogan of being a "leftist talking head" because of all the liberal folks he has on too right?
Who is the liberal equivalent of Gavin Mcinnes or Jordan Petersen and when did he have them on?
A host who provided a safe space for a more or less equal mix of left/ right personalities probably would probably be seen as rightist/leftist by their respective opposition and both would be mostly wrong.
That isn’t Rogan. When your mix is one-part run-of-the-mill Conservative, one part mainstream Progressive and one part far-right brute squad leader it becomes obvious which out of those three the show is there to support.
Well see that's the thing isn't it? Anyone that i name will seem perfectly reasonable and middle of the road "mainstream" to you, or the people already on that side of the fence.
Lets take Cornell West for example. He was just on there a few weeks ago.
I don't know a lot about Cornel West. What ethnic or religious group does he hate? Does he espouse some sort of...black ethnonationalism, I guess? Is he the opposite of Ben Shapiro because when Ben Shapiro blamed the Israel/Palestine conflict on the Palestinians on the grounds that "The Palestinian Arab population is rotten to the core" and "Arabs like to bomb crap and live in open sewage", West was saying the same transparently racist things about the Israeli Jewish population instead? Is West the opposite of Gavin McInnes because he founded a far-left organization that glorifies and engages in politically-motivated violence in the name of a racial supremacy ideology?
Because if not, then he's not the liberal equivalent of the alt-right and it looks an awful lot like you're trying to operate from a frame where the dangerous left-wing mirror of white supremacy is just 'opposing white supremacy'.
The thing is that you're the one alleging there is a liberal equivalent to the alt-right in any significant way, which is questionable. I assume there are black ethnonationalist, this being a funny old world and all that, but I am not aware of any of them with a significant voice.
By contrast, Jordan Peterson has sold over 2 million copies of his 12 rules and McInnes founded Vice and been part of a lot of news. They undeniably have a presence, some claim to fame or relevance or whatever. They are on the fringe though, just like Cornel West and the leftist academics that were mentioned previously.
It's not Rogan's fault that those on the far-left aren't crazy racists.
You're misreading my post. I'm specifically making the point that there isn't a liberal equivalent of the alt-right and that's it's nonsense to point to someone like Cornel West and try to argue that it's okay for Rogan to talk to people like McInnes because he also talks to their 'left-wing equivalent', or that the question of whether Rogan is promoting the alt-right or a "leftist talking head" is somehow just a matter of perspective where liberals don't like that he talks to Shapiro and conservatives don't like that he talks to West and those things are comparable in some way. Ninjeff was asked who 'the liberal equivalent of Gavin McInnes or Jordan Petersen' was, gave Cornel West as an example and I am pushing back on that frame because West is clearly not that thing.
But the reason you asked Ninjeff that was because you implied that the show is there to support the alt right/conservatism because Rogan doesn't have an "equal mix" of left/right personalities on his show. Which is a nonsensical claim if you think he literally can't have an equal mix unless he excludes one faction solely because there is no opposite equivalent to it. You can't imply the host is biased for not providing a space for people who do not exist.
Anyway aside from that you are missing my second point (and putting words into Ninjeffs mouth). As Ninjeff rightly observes, you are painting the entire left wing as all being "mainstream" Progressive. You're literally claiming that a radical black socialist is part of the mainstream!
Cornel West is the liberal equivalent of Gavin McInnes because he is on the far left and McInnes is on the far right. They clearly occupy opposite sides of the political spectrum. Fox News people would obviously call Rogan a liberal talking head for having West on. (But then they would call him that even if he had only centre left Dems on.)
...no? Can you point to any claim I've made about the left, or about 'mainstream' progressivism
My bad. I attributed tolrag's post to you and incorporated his point into yours. My apologies.
I'm also not the person who asked Ninjeff what the 'liberal equivalent' of McInnes would be in the first place, and that person's point doesn't appear to be that Rogan would be acceptable if he had an 'equal mix' of left/right personalities, either - rather, they, like me, seem to be arguing that it doesn't matter if he's got an equal mix of left and right personalities if he's also got a bunch of alt-right bigots because the problem isn't about providing political balance, it's about platforming bigotry. I think you're misattributing the whole line of argument here.
perhaps @tolrag himself can clarify, but I took his point to be that the balance of guests on his show meant it supported the right/alt-right. (I don't think he meant it would be acceptable if he had an equal mix either, but also not that the problem was platforming bigotry. I think this was just about perceived and actual bias.)
The show supports the alt-right because it platforms and legitimizes alt-right personalities and because those personalities represent many of the show's most popular guests. I don't particularly give a shit whether he also has left-wing figures on and don't believe the presence or absence or relative level of extremism/centrism of those left-wing figures has any bearing on the fact that he's platforming white supremacy. The entire line of conversation is false equivalency first and whataboutism second.
Cornel West is not the 'liberal equivalent of Gavin McInnes' because the problem with Gavin McInnes isn't that he's a conservative, it's that he's a white supremacist. "White supremacy is good" and "White supremacy is bad" are not equivalent beliefs. Defending accusations that Rogan hosts white supremacists by saying 'he also has socialists on!' is an irrelevance, an attempt to dodge the substance of the criticism, and kind of a great example of why it was dumb of Sanders to go on the show - it gives people who don't want to address Rogan's regular, popular white supremacist guests an easy way to muddy the conversation by pivoting to talking about a socialist he also interviewed rather than engaging with the criticism, which is that he keeps hosting white supremacists.
Cornel West is not the liberal equivalent because he believes white supremacy is bad, because that is an universal belief on the left and even part of the right. He is the liberal equivalent because he is on the corresponding point of the other side. And that is the only reasonable way in which to interpret the term "liberal equivalent" here. Partly because the context was partisan accusations of bias because of the views of his guests, and partly because your interpretation is either contradictory or nonsensical. There is no liberal equivalent of white supremacy, but in that sense there are no equivalent beliefs on the spectrum. "Socialism is good" and "socialism is bad" are not equivalent beliefs either.
No, you completely missed my point (although Abbalah seems to have understood it perfectly).
I responded to a post from Ninjeff where he suggested that Rogan would be viewed just as much as a liberal talking head by right wingers as HarryDresden viewed him as equivalent to a FOX talking head. The implication being that BothSides believed him to be in the tank for the other, and BothSides were failing to understand that Rogan was just too special to be put in a left/right box.
My response to this was that was not an accurate depiction of Rogans show, as his guest list has not two but three sides, made up of conservatives, progressives and bigots. Rogans format is designed to provide an uncritical safe space for all guests, which whilst not really a big deal to regular conservative or liberal guests (who are prepared to answer whatever questions about their positions/ideas they are asked), is vital for the white supremacist guests. Bigots can freely appear on the Rogan show with no fear of being forced to defend their support for discrimination, calls for violence or even actual violence, and its bigots that Rogan means to benefit the most.
If someone gave you a glass filled with two parts water to one part poison you would know them for a poisoner, Rogans mix of two parts politics-as-usual to one part evil is him making it clear who he is.
Stroooong disagree. Rogan is a true believer in the value of his format. There's no way he's an intentional poisoner.
Giving a safe space to bigots is the value of his format.
The value of his format is that he's some sort of talk radio internet host. Whatever that means.
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.
+3
Options
WhiteZinfandelYour insidesLet me show you themRegistered Userregular
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.
Rogan's being a Fox taking head because he's humanising, normalising and giving softball interviews to the bad actors on those very same conservative networks. He may have his own style but it remains the same outcome by signal boosting the conservative All-Stars.
You realize the "Fox news" people will accuse Rogan of being a "leftist talking head" because of all the liberal folks he has on too right?
Who is the liberal equivalent of Gavin Mcinnes or Jordan Petersen and when did he have them on?
A host who provided a safe space for a more or less equal mix of left/ right personalities probably would probably be seen as rightist/leftist by their respective opposition and both would be mostly wrong.
That isn’t Rogan. When your mix is one-part run-of-the-mill Conservative, one part mainstream Progressive and one part far-right brute squad leader it becomes obvious which out of those three the show is there to support.
Well see that's the thing isn't it? Anyone that i name will seem perfectly reasonable and middle of the road "mainstream" to you, or the people already on that side of the fence.
Lets take Cornell West for example. He was just on there a few weeks ago.
I don't know a lot about Cornel West. What ethnic or religious group does he hate? Does he espouse some sort of...black ethnonationalism, I guess? Is he the opposite of Ben Shapiro because when Ben Shapiro blamed the Israel/Palestine conflict on the Palestinians on the grounds that "The Palestinian Arab population is rotten to the core" and "Arabs like to bomb crap and live in open sewage", West was saying the same transparently racist things about the Israeli Jewish population instead? Is West the opposite of Gavin McInnes because he founded a far-left organization that glorifies and engages in politically-motivated violence in the name of a racial supremacy ideology?
Because if not, then he's not the liberal equivalent of the alt-right and it looks an awful lot like you're trying to operate from a frame where the dangerous left-wing mirror of white supremacy is just 'opposing white supremacy'.
The thing is that you're the one alleging there is a liberal equivalent to the alt-right in any significant way, which is questionable. I assume there are black ethnonationalist, this being a funny old world and all that, but I am not aware of any of them with a significant voice.
By contrast, Jordan Peterson has sold over 2 million copies of his 12 rules and McInnes founded Vice and been part of a lot of news. They undeniably have a presence, some claim to fame or relevance or whatever. They are on the fringe though, just like Cornel West and the leftist academics that were mentioned previously.
It's not Rogan's fault that those on the far-left aren't crazy racists.
You're misreading my post. I'm specifically making the point that there isn't a liberal equivalent of the alt-right and that's it's nonsense to point to someone like Cornel West and try to argue that it's okay for Rogan to talk to people like McInnes because he also talks to their 'left-wing equivalent', or that the question of whether Rogan is promoting the alt-right or a "leftist talking head" is somehow just a matter of perspective where liberals don't like that he talks to Shapiro and conservatives don't like that he talks to West and those things are comparable in some way. Ninjeff was asked who 'the liberal equivalent of Gavin McInnes or Jordan Petersen' was, gave Cornel West as an example and I am pushing back on that frame because West is clearly not that thing.
But the reason you asked Ninjeff that was because you implied that the show is there to support the alt right/conservatism because Rogan doesn't have an "equal mix" of left/right personalities on his show. Which is a nonsensical claim if you think he literally can't have an equal mix unless he excludes one faction solely because there is no opposite equivalent to it. You can't imply the host is biased for not providing a space for people who do not exist.
Anyway aside from that you are missing my second point (and putting words into Ninjeffs mouth). As Ninjeff rightly observes, you are painting the entire left wing as all being "mainstream" Progressive. You're literally claiming that a radical black socialist is part of the mainstream!
Cornel West is the liberal equivalent of Gavin McInnes because he is on the far left and McInnes is on the far right. They clearly occupy opposite sides of the political spectrum. Fox News people would obviously call Rogan a liberal talking head for having West on. (But then they would call him that even if he had only centre left Dems on.)
...no? Can you point to any claim I've made about the left, or about 'mainstream' progressivism
My bad. I attributed tolrag's post to you and incorporated his point into yours. My apologies.
I'm also not the person who asked Ninjeff what the 'liberal equivalent' of McInnes would be in the first place, and that person's point doesn't appear to be that Rogan would be acceptable if he had an 'equal mix' of left/right personalities, either - rather, they, like me, seem to be arguing that it doesn't matter if he's got an equal mix of left and right personalities if he's also got a bunch of alt-right bigots because the problem isn't about providing political balance, it's about platforming bigotry. I think you're misattributing the whole line of argument here.
perhaps @tolrag himself can clarify, but I took his point to be that the balance of guests on his show meant it supported the right/alt-right. (I don't think he meant it would be acceptable if he had an equal mix either, but also not that the problem was platforming bigotry. I think this was just about perceived and actual bias.)
The show supports the alt-right because it platforms and legitimizes alt-right personalities and because those personalities represent many of the show's most popular guests. I don't particularly give a shit whether he also has left-wing figures on and don't believe the presence or absence or relative level of extremism/centrism of those left-wing figures has any bearing on the fact that he's platforming white supremacy. The entire line of conversation is false equivalency first and whataboutism second.
Cornel West is not the 'liberal equivalent of Gavin McInnes' because the problem with Gavin McInnes isn't that he's a conservative, it's that he's a white supremacist. "White supremacy is good" and "White supremacy is bad" are not equivalent beliefs. Defending accusations that Rogan hosts white supremacists by saying 'he also has socialists on!' is an irrelevance, an attempt to dodge the substance of the criticism, and kind of a great example of why it was dumb of Sanders to go on the show - it gives people who don't want to address Rogan's regular, popular white supremacist guests an easy way to muddy the conversation by pivoting to talking about a socialist he also interviewed rather than engaging with the criticism, which is that he keeps hosting white supremacists.
Cornel West is not the liberal equivalent because he believes white supremacy is bad, because that is an universal belief on the left and even part of the right. He is the liberal equivalent because he is on the corresponding point of the other side. And that is the only reasonable way in which to interpret the term "liberal equivalent" here. Partly because the context was partisan accusations of bias because of the views of his guests, and partly because your interpretation is either contradictory or nonsensical. There is no liberal equivalent of white supremacy, but in that sense there are no equivalent beliefs on the spectrum. "Socialism is good" and "socialism is bad" are not equivalent beliefs either.
No, you completely missed my point (although Abbalah seems to have understood it perfectly).
I responded to a post from Ninjeff where he suggested that Rogan would be viewed just as much as a liberal talking head by right wingers as HarryDresden viewed him as equivalent to a FOX talking head. The implication being that BothSides believed him to be in the tank for the other, and BothSides were failing to understand that Rogan was just too special to be put in a left/right box.
My response to this was that was not an accurate depiction of Rogans show, as his guest list has not two but three sides, made up of conservatives, progressives and bigots. Rogans format is designed to provide an uncritical safe space for all guests, which whilst not really a big deal to regular conservative or liberal guests (who are prepared to answer whatever questions about their positions/ideas they are asked), is vital for the white supremacist guests. Bigots can freely appear on the Rogan show with no fear of being forced to defend their support for discrimination, calls for violence or even actual violence, and its bigots that Rogan means to benefit the most.
If someone gave you a glass filled with two parts water to one part poison you would know them for a poisoner, Rogans mix of two parts politics-as-usual to one part evil is him making it clear who he is.
Stroooong disagree. Rogan is a true believer in the value of his format. There's no way he's an intentional poisoner.
Giving a safe space to bigots is the value of his format.
Tell that to Bernie Sanders.
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
My response to this was that was not an accurate depiction of Rogans show, as his guest list has not two but three sides, made up of conservatives, progressives and bigots.
Right and my point is that that is a dumb analysis. The only way it's three sides is if you either put the whole left wing in one block but not the right one or you pretend that bigots are not on one part of the political spectrum. The fact that they are noxious doesn't mean they don't fall on the spectrum. Rogan has guests on from all over the political spectrum, it's just that one side is the one that sucks and the other side doesn't.
I mean, the regular conservatives are also a bunch of bigots.
And Ninjeff is also absolutely correct that right wingers would view Rogan as a liberal talking head, because that is just what they fucking do.
Has anyone told this to Bernie Sanders? I've tried looking for any press asking his opinion on Rogan and his show and coming out with nothing.
The press really doesn't care about this. This debate we're having is kind of unique.
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?
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.
Rogan's being a Fox taking head because he's humanising, normalising and giving softball interviews to the bad actors on those very same conservative networks. He may have his own style but it remains the same outcome by signal boosting the conservative All-Stars.
You realize the "Fox news" people will accuse Rogan of being a "leftist talking head" because of all the liberal folks he has on too right?
Who is the liberal equivalent of Gavin Mcinnes or Jordan Petersen and when did he have them on?
A host who provided a safe space for a more or less equal mix of left/ right personalities probably would probably be seen as rightist/leftist by their respective opposition and both would be mostly wrong.
That isn’t Rogan. When your mix is one-part run-of-the-mill Conservative, one part mainstream Progressive and one part far-right brute squad leader it becomes obvious which out of those three the show is there to support.
Well see that's the thing isn't it? Anyone that i name will seem perfectly reasonable and middle of the road "mainstream" to you, or the people already on that side of the fence.
Lets take Cornell West for example. He was just on there a few weeks ago.
I don't know a lot about Cornel West. What ethnic or religious group does he hate? Does he espouse some sort of...black ethnonationalism, I guess? Is he the opposite of Ben Shapiro because when Ben Shapiro blamed the Israel/Palestine conflict on the Palestinians on the grounds that "The Palestinian Arab population is rotten to the core" and "Arabs like to bomb crap and live in open sewage", West was saying the same transparently racist things about the Israeli Jewish population instead? Is West the opposite of Gavin McInnes because he founded a far-left organization that glorifies and engages in politically-motivated violence in the name of a racial supremacy ideology?
Because if not, then he's not the liberal equivalent of the alt-right and it looks an awful lot like you're trying to operate from a frame where the dangerous left-wing mirror of white supremacy is just 'opposing white supremacy'.
The thing is that you're the one alleging there is a liberal equivalent to the alt-right in any significant way, which is questionable. I assume there are black ethnonationalist, this being a funny old world and all that, but I am not aware of any of them with a significant voice.
By contrast, Jordan Peterson has sold over 2 million copies of his 12 rules and McInnes founded Vice and been part of a lot of news. They undeniably have a presence, some claim to fame or relevance or whatever. They are on the fringe though, just like Cornel West and the leftist academics that were mentioned previously.
It's not Rogan's fault that those on the far-left aren't crazy racists.
You're misreading my post. I'm specifically making the point that there isn't a liberal equivalent of the alt-right and that's it's nonsense to point to someone like Cornel West and try to argue that it's okay for Rogan to talk to people like McInnes because he also talks to their 'left-wing equivalent', or that the question of whether Rogan is promoting the alt-right or a "leftist talking head" is somehow just a matter of perspective where liberals don't like that he talks to Shapiro and conservatives don't like that he talks to West and those things are comparable in some way. Ninjeff was asked who 'the liberal equivalent of Gavin McInnes or Jordan Petersen' was, gave Cornel West as an example and I am pushing back on that frame because West is clearly not that thing.
But the reason you asked Ninjeff that was because you implied that the show is there to support the alt right/conservatism because Rogan doesn't have an "equal mix" of left/right personalities on his show. Which is a nonsensical claim if you think he literally can't have an equal mix unless he excludes one faction solely because there is no opposite equivalent to it. You can't imply the host is biased for not providing a space for people who do not exist.
Anyway aside from that you are missing my second point (and putting words into Ninjeffs mouth). As Ninjeff rightly observes, you are painting the entire left wing as all being "mainstream" Progressive. You're literally claiming that a radical black socialist is part of the mainstream!
Cornel West is the liberal equivalent of Gavin McInnes because he is on the far left and McInnes is on the far right. They clearly occupy opposite sides of the political spectrum. Fox News people would obviously call Rogan a liberal talking head for having West on. (But then they would call him that even if he had only centre left Dems on.)
...no? Can you point to any claim I've made about the left, or about 'mainstream' progressivism
My bad. I attributed tolrag's post to you and incorporated his point into yours. My apologies.
I'm also not the person who asked Ninjeff what the 'liberal equivalent' of McInnes would be in the first place, and that person's point doesn't appear to be that Rogan would be acceptable if he had an 'equal mix' of left/right personalities, either - rather, they, like me, seem to be arguing that it doesn't matter if he's got an equal mix of left and right personalities if he's also got a bunch of alt-right bigots because the problem isn't about providing political balance, it's about platforming bigotry. I think you're misattributing the whole line of argument here.
perhaps @tolrag himself can clarify, but I took his point to be that the balance of guests on his show meant it supported the right/alt-right. (I don't think he meant it would be acceptable if he had an equal mix either, but also not that the problem was platforming bigotry. I think this was just about perceived and actual bias.)
The show supports the alt-right because it platforms and legitimizes alt-right personalities and because those personalities represent many of the show's most popular guests. I don't particularly give a shit whether he also has left-wing figures on and don't believe the presence or absence or relative level of extremism/centrism of those left-wing figures has any bearing on the fact that he's platforming white supremacy. The entire line of conversation is false equivalency first and whataboutism second.
Cornel West is not the 'liberal equivalent of Gavin McInnes' because the problem with Gavin McInnes isn't that he's a conservative, it's that he's a white supremacist. "White supremacy is good" and "White supremacy is bad" are not equivalent beliefs. Defending accusations that Rogan hosts white supremacists by saying 'he also has socialists on!' is an irrelevance, an attempt to dodge the substance of the criticism, and kind of a great example of why it was dumb of Sanders to go on the show - it gives people who don't want to address Rogan's regular, popular white supremacist guests an easy way to muddy the conversation by pivoting to talking about a socialist he also interviewed rather than engaging with the criticism, which is that he keeps hosting white supremacists.
Cornel West is not the liberal equivalent because he believes white supremacy is bad, because that is an universal belief on the left and even part of the right. He is the liberal equivalent because he is on the corresponding point of the other side. And that is the only reasonable way in which to interpret the term "liberal equivalent" here. Partly because the context was partisan accusations of bias because of the views of his guests, and partly because your interpretation is either contradictory or nonsensical. There is no liberal equivalent of white supremacy, but in that sense there are no equivalent beliefs on the spectrum. "Socialism is good" and "socialism is bad" are not equivalent beliefs either.
No, you completely missed my point (although Abbalah seems to have understood it perfectly).
I responded to a post from Ninjeff where he suggested that Rogan would be viewed just as much as a liberal talking head by right wingers as HarryDresden viewed him as equivalent to a FOX talking head. The implication being that BothSides believed him to be in the tank for the other, and BothSides were failing to understand that Rogan was just too special to be put in a left/right box.
My response to this was that was not an accurate depiction of Rogans show, as his guest list has not two but three sides, made up of conservatives, progressives and bigots. Rogans format is designed to provide an uncritical safe space for all guests, which whilst not really a big deal to regular conservative or liberal guests (who are prepared to answer whatever questions about their positions/ideas they are asked), is vital for the white supremacist guests. Bigots can freely appear on the Rogan show with no fear of being forced to defend their support for discrimination, calls for violence or even actual violence, and its bigots that Rogan means to benefit the most.
If someone gave you a glass filled with two parts water to one part poison you would know them for a poisoner, Rogans mix of two parts politics-as-usual to one part evil is him making it clear who he is.
Stroooong disagree. Rogan is a true believer in the value of his format. There's no way he's an intentional poisoner.
Giving a safe space to bigots is the value of his format.
Honestly, I'm still having trouble with this post. Do you sincerely believe that Rogan is a mustache twirling villain? That promoting bigotry is literally his conscious agenda? Have you ever listened to the guy for 20 minutes?
I've been regularly looking for articles for a week now and the only thing that popped up was an excerpt featured in Weedmaps News
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?
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.
Rogan's being a Fox taking head because he's humanising, normalising and giving softball interviews to the bad actors on those very same conservative networks. He may have his own style but it remains the same outcome by signal boosting the conservative All-Stars.
You realize the "Fox news" people will accuse Rogan of being a "leftist talking head" because of all the liberal folks he has on too right?
Who is the liberal equivalent of Gavin Mcinnes or Jordan Petersen and when did he have them on?
A host who provided a safe space for a more or less equal mix of left/ right personalities probably would probably be seen as rightist/leftist by their respective opposition and both would be mostly wrong.
That isn’t Rogan. When your mix is one-part run-of-the-mill Conservative, one part mainstream Progressive and one part far-right brute squad leader it becomes obvious which out of those three the show is there to support.
Well see that's the thing isn't it? Anyone that i name will seem perfectly reasonable and middle of the road "mainstream" to you, or the people already on that side of the fence.
Lets take Cornell West for example. He was just on there a few weeks ago.
I don't know a lot about Cornel West. What ethnic or religious group does he hate? Does he espouse some sort of...black ethnonationalism, I guess? Is he the opposite of Ben Shapiro because when Ben Shapiro blamed the Israel/Palestine conflict on the Palestinians on the grounds that "The Palestinian Arab population is rotten to the core" and "Arabs like to bomb crap and live in open sewage", West was saying the same transparently racist things about the Israeli Jewish population instead? Is West the opposite of Gavin McInnes because he founded a far-left organization that glorifies and engages in politically-motivated violence in the name of a racial supremacy ideology?
Because if not, then he's not the liberal equivalent of the alt-right and it looks an awful lot like you're trying to operate from a frame where the dangerous left-wing mirror of white supremacy is just 'opposing white supremacy'.
The thing is that you're the one alleging there is a liberal equivalent to the alt-right in any significant way, which is questionable. I assume there are black ethnonationalist, this being a funny old world and all that, but I am not aware of any of them with a significant voice.
By contrast, Jordan Peterson has sold over 2 million copies of his 12 rules and McInnes founded Vice and been part of a lot of news. They undeniably have a presence, some claim to fame or relevance or whatever. They are on the fringe though, just like Cornel West and the leftist academics that were mentioned previously.
It's not Rogan's fault that those on the far-left aren't crazy racists.
You're misreading my post. I'm specifically making the point that there isn't a liberal equivalent of the alt-right and that's it's nonsense to point to someone like Cornel West and try to argue that it's okay for Rogan to talk to people like McInnes because he also talks to their 'left-wing equivalent', or that the question of whether Rogan is promoting the alt-right or a "leftist talking head" is somehow just a matter of perspective where liberals don't like that he talks to Shapiro and conservatives don't like that he talks to West and those things are comparable in some way. Ninjeff was asked who 'the liberal equivalent of Gavin McInnes or Jordan Petersen' was, gave Cornel West as an example and I am pushing back on that frame because West is clearly not that thing.
But the reason you asked Ninjeff that was because you implied that the show is there to support the alt right/conservatism because Rogan doesn't have an "equal mix" of left/right personalities on his show. Which is a nonsensical claim if you think he literally can't have an equal mix unless he excludes one faction solely because there is no opposite equivalent to it. You can't imply the host is biased for not providing a space for people who do not exist.
Anyway aside from that you are missing my second point (and putting words into Ninjeffs mouth). As Ninjeff rightly observes, you are painting the entire left wing as all being "mainstream" Progressive. You're literally claiming that a radical black socialist is part of the mainstream!
Cornel West is the liberal equivalent of Gavin McInnes because he is on the far left and McInnes is on the far right. They clearly occupy opposite sides of the political spectrum. Fox News people would obviously call Rogan a liberal talking head for having West on. (But then they would call him that even if he had only centre left Dems on.)
...no? Can you point to any claim I've made about the left, or about 'mainstream' progressivism
My bad. I attributed tolrag's post to you and incorporated his point into yours. My apologies.
I'm also not the person who asked Ninjeff what the 'liberal equivalent' of McInnes would be in the first place, and that person's point doesn't appear to be that Rogan would be acceptable if he had an 'equal mix' of left/right personalities, either - rather, they, like me, seem to be arguing that it doesn't matter if he's got an equal mix of left and right personalities if he's also got a bunch of alt-right bigots because the problem isn't about providing political balance, it's about platforming bigotry. I think you're misattributing the whole line of argument here.
perhaps @tolrag himself can clarify, but I took his point to be that the balance of guests on his show meant it supported the right/alt-right. (I don't think he meant it would be acceptable if he had an equal mix either, but also not that the problem was platforming bigotry. I think this was just about perceived and actual bias.)
The show supports the alt-right because it platforms and legitimizes alt-right personalities and because those personalities represent many of the show's most popular guests. I don't particularly give a shit whether he also has left-wing figures on and don't believe the presence or absence or relative level of extremism/centrism of those left-wing figures has any bearing on the fact that he's platforming white supremacy. The entire line of conversation is false equivalency first and whataboutism second.
Cornel West is not the 'liberal equivalent of Gavin McInnes' because the problem with Gavin McInnes isn't that he's a conservative, it's that he's a white supremacist. "White supremacy is good" and "White supremacy is bad" are not equivalent beliefs. Defending accusations that Rogan hosts white supremacists by saying 'he also has socialists on!' is an irrelevance, an attempt to dodge the substance of the criticism, and kind of a great example of why it was dumb of Sanders to go on the show - it gives people who don't want to address Rogan's regular, popular white supremacist guests an easy way to muddy the conversation by pivoting to talking about a socialist he also interviewed rather than engaging with the criticism, which is that he keeps hosting white supremacists.
Cornel West is not the liberal equivalent because he believes white supremacy is bad, because that is an universal belief on the left and even part of the right. He is the liberal equivalent because he is on the corresponding point of the other side. And that is the only reasonable way in which to interpret the term "liberal equivalent" here. Partly because the context was partisan accusations of bias because of the views of his guests, and partly because your interpretation is either contradictory or nonsensical. There is no liberal equivalent of white supremacy, but in that sense there are no equivalent beliefs on the spectrum. "Socialism is good" and "socialism is bad" are not equivalent beliefs either.
No, you completely missed my point (although Abbalah seems to have understood it perfectly).
I responded to a post from Ninjeff where he suggested that Rogan would be viewed just as much as a liberal talking head by right wingers as HarryDresden viewed him as equivalent to a FOX talking head. The implication being that BothSides believed him to be in the tank for the other, and BothSides were failing to understand that Rogan was just too special to be put in a left/right box.
My response to this was that was not an accurate depiction of Rogans show, as his guest list has not two but three sides, made up of conservatives, progressives and bigots. Rogans format is designed to provide an uncritical safe space for all guests, which whilst not really a big deal to regular conservative or liberal guests (who are prepared to answer whatever questions about their positions/ideas they are asked), is vital for the white supremacist guests. Bigots can freely appear on the Rogan show with no fear of being forced to defend their support for discrimination, calls for violence or even actual violence, and its bigots that Rogan means to benefit the most.
If someone gave you a glass filled with two parts water to one part poison you would know them for a poisoner, Rogans mix of two parts politics-as-usual to one part evil is him making it clear who he is.
Stroooong disagree. Rogan is a true believer in the value of his format. There's no way he's an intentional poisoner.
Giving a safe space to bigots is the value of his format.
Honestly, I'm still having trouble with this post. Do you sincerely believe that Rogan is a mustache twirling villain? That promoting bigotry is literally his conscious agenda? Have you ever listened to the guy for 20 minutes?
He doesn't have to be a "mustache twirling villain" to be providing a safe space to bigots.
In fact, being a useful fool, a bumbling idiot collaborator... in a lot of ways, that's better for the bigots. The better for them to exploit, with the extra deniability and legitimacy it provides
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.
Rogan's being a Fox taking head because he's humanising, normalising and giving softball interviews to the bad actors on those very same conservative networks. He may have his own style but it remains the same outcome by signal boosting the conservative All-Stars.
You realize the "Fox news" people will accuse Rogan of being a "leftist talking head" because of all the liberal folks he has on too right?
Who is the liberal equivalent of Gavin Mcinnes or Jordan Petersen and when did he have them on?
A host who provided a safe space for a more or less equal mix of left/ right personalities probably would probably be seen as rightist/leftist by their respective opposition and both would be mostly wrong.
That isn’t Rogan. When your mix is one-part run-of-the-mill Conservative, one part mainstream Progressive and one part far-right brute squad leader it becomes obvious which out of those three the show is there to support.
Well see that's the thing isn't it? Anyone that i name will seem perfectly reasonable and middle of the road "mainstream" to you, or the people already on that side of the fence.
Lets take Cornell West for example. He was just on there a few weeks ago.
I don't know a lot about Cornel West. What ethnic or religious group does he hate? Does he espouse some sort of...black ethnonationalism, I guess? Is he the opposite of Ben Shapiro because when Ben Shapiro blamed the Israel/Palestine conflict on the Palestinians on the grounds that "The Palestinian Arab population is rotten to the core" and "Arabs like to bomb crap and live in open sewage", West was saying the same transparently racist things about the Israeli Jewish population instead? Is West the opposite of Gavin McInnes because he founded a far-left organization that glorifies and engages in politically-motivated violence in the name of a racial supremacy ideology?
Because if not, then he's not the liberal equivalent of the alt-right and it looks an awful lot like you're trying to operate from a frame where the dangerous left-wing mirror of white supremacy is just 'opposing white supremacy'.
The thing is that you're the one alleging there is a liberal equivalent to the alt-right in any significant way, which is questionable. I assume there are black ethnonationalist, this being a funny old world and all that, but I am not aware of any of them with a significant voice.
By contrast, Jordan Peterson has sold over 2 million copies of his 12 rules and McInnes founded Vice and been part of a lot of news. They undeniably have a presence, some claim to fame or relevance or whatever. They are on the fringe though, just like Cornel West and the leftist academics that were mentioned previously.
It's not Rogan's fault that those on the far-left aren't crazy racists.
You're misreading my post. I'm specifically making the point that there isn't a liberal equivalent of the alt-right and that's it's nonsense to point to someone like Cornel West and try to argue that it's okay for Rogan to talk to people like McInnes because he also talks to their 'left-wing equivalent', or that the question of whether Rogan is promoting the alt-right or a "leftist talking head" is somehow just a matter of perspective where liberals don't like that he talks to Shapiro and conservatives don't like that he talks to West and those things are comparable in some way. Ninjeff was asked who 'the liberal equivalent of Gavin McInnes or Jordan Petersen' was, gave Cornel West as an example and I am pushing back on that frame because West is clearly not that thing.
But the reason you asked Ninjeff that was because you implied that the show is there to support the alt right/conservatism because Rogan doesn't have an "equal mix" of left/right personalities on his show. Which is a nonsensical claim if you think he literally can't have an equal mix unless he excludes one faction solely because there is no opposite equivalent to it. You can't imply the host is biased for not providing a space for people who do not exist.
Anyway aside from that you are missing my second point (and putting words into Ninjeffs mouth). As Ninjeff rightly observes, you are painting the entire left wing as all being "mainstream" Progressive. You're literally claiming that a radical black socialist is part of the mainstream!
Cornel West is the liberal equivalent of Gavin McInnes because he is on the far left and McInnes is on the far right. They clearly occupy opposite sides of the political spectrum. Fox News people would obviously call Rogan a liberal talking head for having West on. (But then they would call him that even if he had only centre left Dems on.)
...no? Can you point to any claim I've made about the left, or about 'mainstream' progressivism
My bad. I attributed tolrag's post to you and incorporated his point into yours. My apologies.
I'm also not the person who asked Ninjeff what the 'liberal equivalent' of McInnes would be in the first place, and that person's point doesn't appear to be that Rogan would be acceptable if he had an 'equal mix' of left/right personalities, either - rather, they, like me, seem to be arguing that it doesn't matter if he's got an equal mix of left and right personalities if he's also got a bunch of alt-right bigots because the problem isn't about providing political balance, it's about platforming bigotry. I think you're misattributing the whole line of argument here.
perhaps @tolrag himself can clarify, but I took his point to be that the balance of guests on his show meant it supported the right/alt-right. (I don't think he meant it would be acceptable if he had an equal mix either, but also not that the problem was platforming bigotry. I think this was just about perceived and actual bias.)
The show supports the alt-right because it platforms and legitimizes alt-right personalities and because those personalities represent many of the show's most popular guests. I don't particularly give a shit whether he also has left-wing figures on and don't believe the presence or absence or relative level of extremism/centrism of those left-wing figures has any bearing on the fact that he's platforming white supremacy. The entire line of conversation is false equivalency first and whataboutism second.
Cornel West is not the 'liberal equivalent of Gavin McInnes' because the problem with Gavin McInnes isn't that he's a conservative, it's that he's a white supremacist. "White supremacy is good" and "White supremacy is bad" are not equivalent beliefs. Defending accusations that Rogan hosts white supremacists by saying 'he also has socialists on!' is an irrelevance, an attempt to dodge the substance of the criticism, and kind of a great example of why it was dumb of Sanders to go on the show - it gives people who don't want to address Rogan's regular, popular white supremacist guests an easy way to muddy the conversation by pivoting to talking about a socialist he also interviewed rather than engaging with the criticism, which is that he keeps hosting white supremacists.
Cornel West is not the liberal equivalent because he believes white supremacy is bad, because that is an universal belief on the left and even part of the right. He is the liberal equivalent because he is on the corresponding point of the other side. And that is the only reasonable way in which to interpret the term "liberal equivalent" here. Partly because the context was partisan accusations of bias because of the views of his guests, and partly because your interpretation is either contradictory or nonsensical. There is no liberal equivalent of white supremacy, but in that sense there are no equivalent beliefs on the spectrum. "Socialism is good" and "socialism is bad" are not equivalent beliefs either.
No, you completely missed my point (although Abbalah seems to have understood it perfectly).
I responded to a post from Ninjeff where he suggested that Rogan would be viewed just as much as a liberal talking head by right wingers as HarryDresden viewed him as equivalent to a FOX talking head. The implication being that BothSides believed him to be in the tank for the other, and BothSides were failing to understand that Rogan was just too special to be put in a left/right box.
My response to this was that was not an accurate depiction of Rogans show, as his guest list has not two but three sides, made up of conservatives, progressives and bigots. Rogans format is designed to provide an uncritical safe space for all guests, which whilst not really a big deal to regular conservative or liberal guests (who are prepared to answer whatever questions about their positions/ideas they are asked), is vital for the white supremacist guests. Bigots can freely appear on the Rogan show with no fear of being forced to defend their support for discrimination, calls for violence or even actual violence, and its bigots that Rogan means to benefit the most.
If someone gave you a glass filled with two parts water to one part poison you would know them for a poisoner, Rogans mix of two parts politics-as-usual to one part evil is him making it clear who he is.
Stroooong disagree. Rogan is a true believer in the value of his format. There's no way he's an intentional poisoner.
Giving a safe space to bigots is the value of his format.
Honestly, I'm still having trouble with this post. Do you sincerely believe that Rogan is a mustache twirling villain? That promoting bigotry is literally his conscious agenda? Have you ever listened to the guy for 20 minutes?
He doesn't have to be a "mustache twirling villain" to be providing a safe space to bigots.
In fact, being a useful fool, a bumbling idiot collaborator... in a lot of ways, that's better for the bigots. The better for them to exploit, with the extra deniability and legitimacy it provides
Not what I asked. I wanted to know if tolrag legitimately believes that he is that mustache twirling villain, intentionally acting as an agonist for bigotry.
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
It doesn’t matter whether his bones are racist or the secret longings of his heart; it is by Rogan’s actions that we must judge him.
That said, how stupid do you have to be to want to give Alex Jones your time and not know what you’re doing?
If Rogan’s mind is so open his brains fell out, does it really make a difference?
He’s a wealthy celebrity with millions of followers; his responsibility to make informed, moral choices with his platform is immense
In other words, it doesn’t really matter how the poison got in the glass; you shouldn’t drink it, he shouldn’t offer it, and he definitely shouldn’t be mixing the punch for the Democratic party
There's lots of different poisons out there, especially over the internet. I make it a point to expose myself to them to get some measure of tolerance.
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.
My response to this was that was not an accurate depiction of Rogans show, as his guest list has not two but three sides, made up of conservatives, progressives and bigots.
Right and my point is that that is a dumb analysis. The only way it's three sides is if you either put the whole left wing in one block but not the right one or you pretend that bigots are not on one part of the political spectrum. The fact that they are noxious doesn't mean they don't fall on the spectrum. Rogan has guests on from all over the political spectrum, it's just that one side is the one that sucks and the other side doesn't.
I mean, the regular conservatives are also a bunch of bigots.
And Ninjeff is also absolutely correct that right wingers would view Rogan as a liberal talking head, because that is just what they fucking do.
I mean, if you want to argue that there's no non-bigoted form of American conservatism, that's probably not a hard sell, but it seems like maybe we're talking around the point somehow.
Bigotry isn't a legitimate part of the political spectrum, it has no 'opposite side' equivalent, and a person who is platforming bigotry doesn't become 'neutral' somehow by virtue of the fact that they also talk to non-bigots.
We got onto this tangent, by my read, because it was suggested that while us left-wing types think Rogan is dangerous because he's platforming the alt-right, that's actually just our own bias and conservatives would think he's dangerously leftist because he platforms left-wing people too, the implication being that if the people on the left think he's helping the alt-right and the people on the right think he's helping the left, it must mean that he's really an unbiased source who lives in the middle and talks to everyone and not an alt-right gateway.
That line of argument is invalid for a whole grab bag of reasons, but the primary one is that the people he's platforming aren't 'conservative' in a sense you can balance by also talking to liberals, they're just transparently racist, islamophobic white supremacists. You can't 'balance' that with anything else - it is bad and dangerous, full stop, regardless of who else you might also be platforming, and the entire line of argument that stems from pointing to the other people Rogan talks to as some kind of defense against the criticism that he platforms neonazis is a meaningless distraction from the point.
There's lots of different poisons out there, especially over the internet. I make it a point to expose myself to them to get some measure of tolerance.
And that's fine.
The problem here is however, that Rogan is exposing other people to poison, without telling them.
And to a lesser extent, so did Bernie by going to his show.
There's lots of different poisons out there, especially over the internet. I make it a point to expose myself to them to get some measure of tolerance.
And that's fine.
The problem here is however, that Rogan is exposing other people to poison, without telling them.
And to a lesser extent, so did Bernie by going to his show.
I feel like it is way beneath every candidate to call attention to people like Alex Jones specifically and would definitely backfire. I can't imagine doing something like that in the interview and not torpedoing the entire point of the interview.
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.
There's lots of different poisons out there, especially over the internet. I make it a point to expose myself to them to get some measure of tolerance.
And that's fine.
The problem here is however, that Rogan is exposing other people to poison, without telling them.
And to a lesser extent, so did Bernie by going to his show.
I feel like it is way beneath every candidate to call attention to people like Alex Jones specifically and would definitely backfire. I can't imagine doing something like that in the interview and not torpedoing the entire point of the interview.
Well, in a way yes, maybe.
But going to a venue that gives Alex Jones, and people just as bad, if not worse than him, is in itself bad.
I am not very sympathetic towards the argument that doing the right thing would have been a bad thing, and doing a bad thing was the right thing (for Bernie).
Like, this is not a "never vote/banish into irrelevance" issue, but it is one where Bernie should be criticized and called out.
There's lots of different poisons out there, especially over the internet. I make it a point to expose myself to them to get some measure of tolerance.
And that's fine.
The problem here is however, that Rogan is exposing other people to poison, without telling them.
And to a lesser extent, so did Bernie by going to his show.
I feel like it is way beneath every candidate to call attention to people like Alex Jones specifically and would definitely backfire. I can't imagine doing something like that in the interview and not torpedoing the entire point of the interview.
Well, in a way yes, maybe.
But going to a venue that gives Alex Jones, and people just as bad, if not worse than him, is in itself bad.
I am not very sympathetic towards the argument that doing the right thing would have been a bad thing, and doing a bad thing was the right thing (for Bernie).
Like, this is not a "never vote/banish into irrelevance" issue, but it is one where Bernie should be criticized and called out.
I'm pretty ambivalent. I don't know how much needs to change about how the democratic party relates to the public and gets the influence and power it needs to break out of this cycle we're in. Maybe it's normal and we'll be back on track next year finally without having to do anything special. In that case, i don't really care. Joe Rogan is some moderate popularity YouTube personality, and there are a billion of those.
Calling out him or Bernie - don't really feel strongly. I'm shortsighted and don't really feel like addressing the behavior of people I'm not actually talking to most of the time. Unless we agree on what he stands to win, I don't feel really excited to research or discuss what he stands to lose. I can just hand wave it and say that we don't really understand how all this works, which is more or less true. It all feels like extra credit, something that requires a lot of effort for little change or gain. It feels like we're cleaning behind the toilet, when all I really want to do is wipe down the seat.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
0
Options
WhiteZinfandelYour insidesLet me show you themRegistered Userregular
It doesn’t matter whether his bones are racist or the secret longings of his heart; it is by Rogan’s actions that we must judge him.
That's a cute line, but it's only kind of sort of halfway true. People's intentions are significant, both legally and morally. In any case, you guys keep responding to a specific question for a specific person with the nonanswer of "it doesn't matter." Yeah, yeah, I get that you don't care. I do, obviously, and I'm still waiting on the answer because it's significant to me.
It doesn’t matter whether his bones are racist or the secret longings of his heart; it is by Rogan’s actions that we must judge him.
That's a cute line, but it's only kind of sort of halfway true. People's intentions are significant, both legally and morally. In any case, you guys keep responding to a specific question for a specific person with the nonanswer of "it doesn't matter." Yeah, yeah, I get that you don't care. I do, obviously, and I'm still waiting on the answer because it's significant to me.
Intentions can matter.
But not when measuring, or avoiding, harm.
Our personal opinion (or legal liability) may depend on intentions and beliefs, but the effects of actions rarely do.
+1
Options
WhiteZinfandelYour insidesLet me show you themRegistered Userregular
I'm still waiting on Tolrag (specifically) to respond. Hopefully with an actual yes or no answer to my yes or no question.
Sanders's particular accusation was new, but his logic has been consistent for years: It's the job of the media to generate clicks and profits, and it's the job of a candidate to sell a message. He rarely “gaggles” with reporters on the campaign trail, preferring formats where he can speak for minutes at a time. He is one of just three Democrats to sit with Joe Rogan, the MMA announcer and podcaster, doing so because Rogan gives his guests an hour to explain themselves. (The other two are Andrew Yang and Tulsi Gabbard, lower-polling candidates who do not draw as much major media attention as Sanders.)
“My God, 7.9 million views already!” Sanders campaign co-chair Nina Turner said of the Rogan podcast, on Monday, referring to the YouTube version.
Sanders's particular accusation was new, but his logic has been consistent for years: It's the job of the media to generate clicks and profits, and it's the job of a candidate to sell a message. He rarely “gaggles” with reporters on the campaign trail, preferring formats where he can speak for minutes at a time. He is one of just three Democrats to sit with Joe Rogan, the MMA announcer and podcaster, doing so because Rogan gives his guests an hour to explain themselves. (The other two are Andrew Yang and Tulsi Gabbard, lower-polling candidates who do not draw as much major media attention as Sanders.)
“My God, 7.9 million views already!” Sanders campaign co-chair Nina Turner said of the Rogan podcast, on Monday, referring to the YouTube version.
That's on the first two pages of a Google search I did five minutes ago.
What's Weedmaps News?
The only result of a google news search for the interview that isn't as old as the interview itself, I think.
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, The Atlantic ran a piece about Rogan, and while the initial framing device is grating and undermines the piece in my opinion, there are interesting points it makes about Rogan's position:
In order to get at the truth of Joe’s beliefs, you have to ignore what he says and watch what he does. Rogan likes to say that he’s voted for a Democrat in every presidential election—aside from a brief ill-advised fling with Gary Johnson—and that he despises Trump. During a podcast episode in March, he described himself as “fucking left wing” and “almost a socialist,” then ticked off a list of progressive issues he backs, including universal basic income and free college. In early August, Bernie Sanders came on for a pithy hour-long episode. He tends to assert his progressive credentials, though, only when he gets accused of being a far-right mouthpiece, and it always has a ring of “Some of my best friends voted for Hillary.” More revealing is who he invites onto his podcast, and what subjects he chooses to feast on in his stand-up specials. And if you cast a wide enough net, clear patterns emerge. If there’s a woman or a person of color (or both) on Joe’s podcast, the odds are high that person is a fighter or an entertainer, and not a public intellectual.
Rogan’s most recent Netflix special is often funny because Joe Rogan is a professional stand-up comedian, but if you look past the jokes themselves and focus on the targets he’s choosing, the same patterns emerge. Hillary, the #MeToo movement, why it sucks that he can’t call things “gay,” vegan bullies, sexism. Of all the things in the world for a comedian to joke about right now, why these? “I say shit I don’t mean because it’s funny,” he says during the special, which is something all comedians say, and is sort of true but also sort of not. People reveal their deepest selves in the subjects they keep revisiting, and the hills they choose to die on. With Rogan, you can often see and hear the tension between what he knows he’s supposed to believe and what he really thinks. Joe Rogan may be all about love, but beneath the surface he’s seething.
Onstage, Rogan tends to wear the familiar uniform of chiseled men everywhere enjoying a night on the town: jeans, shiny button-down shirt, untucked, with a spread collar and unbuttoned cuffs, like his torso is a wine that needs to breathe. He stomps around as he performs, and his voice often rises to a shout, like Sam Kinison. In Strange Times, he complained that his critics believe he “hates gays and cats,” but he also seems ambivalent about women, especially Clinton, whom he described as “a lying old lady who faints a lot.”
And speaking of a lot: He uses the word lady a lot. “Ladies,” he went on, “you make people. You make all the people. And you want to be president, too, you fucking greedy bitches? What else do you want? You want bigger dicks than us?” “Ladies,” he went on some more, “I love you … but let’s be honest, you don’t invent a lot of shit.”
It's not difficult to see what makes Rogan problematic - it just requires looking at what he actually says and does.
I think Bernie's speech about white supremacy went the recommended amount in preventing his followers from going down the path of white supremacy.
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, The Atlantic ran a piece about Rogan, and while the initial framing device is grating and undermines the piece in my opinion, there are interesting points it makes about Rogan's position:
In order to get at the truth of Joe’s beliefs, you have to ignore what he says and watch what he does. Rogan likes to say that he’s voted for a Democrat in every presidential election—aside from a brief ill-advised fling with Gary Johnson—and that he despises Trump. During a podcast episode in March, he described himself as “fucking left wing” and “almost a socialist,” then ticked off a list of progressive issues he backs, including universal basic income and free college. In early August, Bernie Sanders came on for a pithy hour-long episode. He tends to assert his progressive credentials, though, only when he gets accused of being a far-right mouthpiece, and it always has a ring of “Some of my best friends voted for Hillary.” More revealing is who he invites onto his podcast, and what subjects he chooses to feast on in his stand-up specials. And if you cast a wide enough net, clear patterns emerge. If there’s a woman or a person of color (or both) on Joe’s podcast, the odds are high that person is a fighter or an entertainer, and not a public intellectual.
Rogan’s most recent Netflix special is often funny because Joe Rogan is a professional stand-up comedian, but if you look past the jokes themselves and focus on the targets he’s choosing, the same patterns emerge. Hillary, the #MeToo movement, why it sucks that he can’t call things “gay,” vegan bullies, sexism. Of all the things in the world for a comedian to joke about right now, why these? “I say shit I don’t mean because it’s funny,” he says during the special, which is something all comedians say, and is sort of true but also sort of not. People reveal their deepest selves in the subjects they keep revisiting, and the hills they choose to die on. With Rogan, you can often see and hear the tension between what he knows he’s supposed to believe and what he really thinks. Joe Rogan may be all about love, but beneath the surface he’s seething.
Onstage, Rogan tends to wear the familiar uniform of chiseled men everywhere enjoying a night on the town: jeans, shiny button-down shirt, untucked, with a spread collar and unbuttoned cuffs, like his torso is a wine that needs to breathe. He stomps around as he performs, and his voice often rises to a shout, like Sam Kinison. In Strange Times, he complained that his critics believe he “hates gays and cats,” but he also seems ambivalent about women, especially Clinton, whom he described as “a lying old lady who faints a lot.”
And speaking of a lot: He uses the word lady a lot. “Ladies,” he went on, “you make people. You make all the people. And you want to be president, too, you fucking greedy bitches? What else do you want? You want bigger dicks than us?” “Ladies,” he went on some more, “I love you … but let’s be honest, you don’t invent a lot of shit.”
It's not difficult to see what makes Rogan problematic - it just requires looking at what he actually says and does.
I take that article with a huge grain of salt. Lots of projection and conjecture. When someone claims to understand that someone is “internally seething” you know you’re just reading someone’s opinion page with no more credibility than a random forum post.
So, The Atlantic ran a piece about Rogan, and while the initial framing device is grating and undermines the piece in my opinion, there are interesting points it makes about Rogan's position:
In order to get at the truth of Joe’s beliefs, you have to ignore what he says and watch what he does. Rogan likes to say that he’s voted for a Democrat in every presidential election—aside from a brief ill-advised fling with Gary Johnson—and that he despises Trump. During a podcast episode in March, he described himself as “fucking left wing” and “almost a socialist,” then ticked off a list of progressive issues he backs, including universal basic income and free college. In early August, Bernie Sanders came on for a pithy hour-long episode. He tends to assert his progressive credentials, though, only when he gets accused of being a far-right mouthpiece, and it always has a ring of “Some of my best friends voted for Hillary.” More revealing is who he invites onto his podcast, and what subjects he chooses to feast on in his stand-up specials. And if you cast a wide enough net, clear patterns emerge. If there’s a woman or a person of color (or both) on Joe’s podcast, the odds are high that person is a fighter or an entertainer, and not a public intellectual.
Rogan’s most recent Netflix special is often funny because Joe Rogan is a professional stand-up comedian, but if you look past the jokes themselves and focus on the targets he’s choosing, the same patterns emerge. Hillary, the #MeToo movement, why it sucks that he can’t call things “gay,” vegan bullies, sexism. Of all the things in the world for a comedian to joke about right now, why these? “I say shit I don’t mean because it’s funny,” he says during the special, which is something all comedians say, and is sort of true but also sort of not. People reveal their deepest selves in the subjects they keep revisiting, and the hills they choose to die on. With Rogan, you can often see and hear the tension between what he knows he’s supposed to believe and what he really thinks. Joe Rogan may be all about love, but beneath the surface he’s seething.
Onstage, Rogan tends to wear the familiar uniform of chiseled men everywhere enjoying a night on the town: jeans, shiny button-down shirt, untucked, with a spread collar and unbuttoned cuffs, like his torso is a wine that needs to breathe. He stomps around as he performs, and his voice often rises to a shout, like Sam Kinison. In Strange Times, he complained that his critics believe he “hates gays and cats,” but he also seems ambivalent about women, especially Clinton, whom he described as “a lying old lady who faints a lot.”
And speaking of a lot: He uses the word lady a lot. “Ladies,” he went on, “you make people. You make all the people. And you want to be president, too, you fucking greedy bitches? What else do you want? You want bigger dicks than us?” “Ladies,” he went on some more, “I love you … but let’s be honest, you don’t invent a lot of shit.”
It's not difficult to see what makes Rogan problematic - it just requires looking at what he actually says and does.
I take that article with a huge grain of salt. Lots of projection and conjecture. When someone claims to understand that someone is “internally seething” you know you’re just reading someone’s opinion page with no more credibility than a random forum post.
Yes, punditry is ultimately opinion by the nature of the format - but when done well, it's opinion driven by fact. Which is what is being outlined in the piece, by pointing out the patterns and what Rogan actually talks about.
WhiteZinfandelYour insidesLet me show you themRegistered Userregular
That block quote spends a lot of time ignoring its very own first sentence about ignoring what he says and paying attention to what he does. Oh no, he uses the word "ladies" in standup comedy for comedic effect! Come the fuck on. Also,
If there’s a woman or a person of color (or both) on Joe’s podcast, the odds are high that person is a fighter or an entertainer, and not a public intellectual.
can just as accurately be shortened to
If there's a person on Joe’s podcast, the odds are high that person is a fighter or an entertainer, and not a public intellectual.
No. Its consistent. Preference claims should be ignored towards more organic constructions of preference. His use of the term “ladies” is an action rather than a statement of preference in this context. Just as i could claim to be a feminist but then call every woman i meet a B word. We would not say “ignore the use of language because its language”. We should instead weight the use of language higher than the preference statement that preceeded it.
No. Its consistent. Preference claims should be ignored towards more organic constructions of preference. His use of the term “ladies” is an action rather than a statement of preference in this context. Just as i could claim to be a feminist but then call every woman i meet a B word. We would not say “ignore the use of language because its language”. We should instead weight the use of language higher than the preference statement that preceeded it.
Or to put it simply, he's using the more "polite" term of "ladies" to attempt to blunt his misogyny.
This sentence is how you know the article is full of bullshit:
"Onstage, Rogan tends to wear the familiar uniform of chiseled men everywhere enjoying a night on the town: jeans, shiny button-down shirt, untucked, with a spread collar and unbuttoned cuffs, like his torso is a wine that needs to breathe. He stomps around as he performs, and his voice often rises to a shout, like Sam Kinison. In Strange Times, he complained that his critics believe he “hates gays and cats,” but he also seems ambivalent about women, especially Clinton, whom he described as “a lying old lady who faints a lot.”
"
So, you mean like, the exact same clothes almost every comic the world over wears. Or do you mean the universal "business casual" uniform of every office in America?
No. Its consistent. Preference claims should be ignored towards more organic constructions of preference. His use of the term “ladies” is an action rather than a statement of preference in this context. Just as i could claim to be a feminist but then call every woman i meet a B word. We would not say “ignore the use of language because its language”. We should instead weight the use of language higher than the preference statement that preceeded it.
Or to put it simply, he's using the more "polite" term of "ladies" to attempt to blunt his misogyny.
When did “lady” become misogyny? Did I miss something? Was there a new front in the culture war I slept through?
No. Its consistent. Preference claims should be ignored towards more organic constructions of preference. His use of the term “ladies” is an action rather than a statement of preference in this context. Just as i could claim to be a feminist but then call every woman i meet a B word. We would not say “ignore the use of language because its language”. We should instead weight the use of language higher than the preference statement that preceeded it.
Or to put it simply, he's using the more "polite" term of "ladies" to attempt to blunt his misogyny.
When did “lady” become misogyny? Did I miss something? Was there a new front in the culture war I slept through?
It's not "ladies" that was misogynistic - it was everything that came afterwards.
No. Its consistent. Preference claims should be ignored towards more organic constructions of preference. His use of the term “ladies” is an action rather than a statement of preference in this context. Just as i could claim to be a feminist but then call every woman i meet a B word. We would not say “ignore the use of language because its language”. We should instead weight the use of language higher than the preference statement that preceeded it.
Or to put it simply, he's using the more "polite" term of "ladies" to attempt to blunt his misogyny.
When did “lady” become misogyny? Did I miss something? Was there a new front in the culture war I slept through?
It's not "ladies" that was misogynistic - it was everything that came afterwards.
The article specifically calls out his frequent usage of “ladies”. Final paragraph.
How do you guys read those bits and not see the misogyny in them?
'Ladies don't invent shit and shouldn't be in charge of stuff cause they have babies' is the whole bit.
It's also why my wife has spent years proving to a bunch of old white guys that girls can be engineers, and why her firm got denied for a hospital contract because the hospital administrators wanted an all Male team to do the design. Literally dinging the entire company because my wife helped make the proposal.
I don't know how many times I have to explain that my judgement of Rogan isn't based on someone else's observations. I've been watching his content and comedy for decades now. The misogyny is back there even if Joe is too fuckin dumb to realize he's participating in toxic masculinity and misogyny on a regular basis.
No. Its consistent. Preference claims should be ignored towards more organic constructions of preference. His use of the term “ladies” is an action rather than a statement of preference in this context. Just as i could claim to be a feminist but then call every woman i meet a B word. We would not say “ignore the use of language because its language”. We should instead weight the use of language higher than the preference statement that preceeded it.
Or to put it simply, he's using the more "polite" term of "ladies" to attempt to blunt his misogyny.
When did “lady” become misogyny? Did I miss something? Was there a new front in the culture war I slept through?
It's not "ladies" that was misogynistic - it was everything that came afterwards.
The article specifically calls out his frequent usage of “ladies”. Final paragraph.
Yes, because he's using it to try to blunt his misogyny. It's an old trick of bigots - preface a vile comment with a "polite" form of address to make is seem less vile.
No. Its consistent. Preference claims should be ignored towards more organic constructions of preference. His use of the term “ladies” is an action rather than a statement of preference in this context. Just as i could claim to be a feminist but then call every woman i meet a B word. We would not say “ignore the use of language because its language”. We should instead weight the use of language higher than the preference statement that preceeded it.
Or to put it simply, he's using the more "polite" term of "ladies" to attempt to blunt his misogyny.
When did “lady” become misogyny? Did I miss something? Was there a new front in the culture war I slept through?
It's not "ladies" that was misogynistic - it was everything that came afterwards.
The article specifically calls out his frequent usage of “ladies”. Final paragraph.
No. The final quoted paragraph calls it out and then provides two examples of the misogyny. Because we dont quote whole articles anymore because its bad for the forum.
The final paragraph of the article makes no such mention of “ladies”.
And like... how do you read “you make people. You make all the people. And you want to be president, too, you fucking greedy bitches? What else do you want? You want bigger dicks than us?” And not think “yea that is misogynistic? Maybe his delivery makes it not so. That its actually clear he thinks the opposite and is mocking people who say those things... but i dont think that is the case. And it certainly did not come off as such to the author.
+1
Options
No-QuarterNothing To FearBut Fear ItselfRegistered Userregular
No. Its consistent. Preference claims should be ignored towards more organic constructions of preference. His use of the term “ladies” is an action rather than a statement of preference in this context. Just as i could claim to be a feminist but then call every woman i meet a B word. We would not say “ignore the use of language because its language”. We should instead weight the use of language higher than the preference statement that preceeded it.
Or to put it simply, he's using the more "polite" term of "ladies" to attempt to blunt his misogyny.
When did “lady” become misogyny? Did I miss something? Was there a new front in the culture war I slept through?
It's sort of like how "African Americans" isn't racist, but geegollydonchaknow, my mother always just seems to use it in these funny contexts like "we have this African American boy at school and he is so polite and well-beheaved".
No. Its consistent. Preference claims should be ignored towards more organic constructions of preference. His use of the term “ladies” is an action rather than a statement of preference in this context. Just as i could claim to be a feminist but then call every woman i meet a B word. We would not say “ignore the use of language because its language”. We should instead weight the use of language higher than the preference statement that preceeded it.
Or to put it simply, he's using the more "polite" term of "ladies" to attempt to blunt his misogyny.
When did “lady” become misogyny? Did I miss something? Was there a new front in the culture war I slept through?
It's not "ladies" that was misogynistic - it was everything that came afterwards.
The article specifically calls out his frequent usage of “ladies”. Final paragraph.
No. The final quoted paragraph calls it out and then provides two examples of the misogyny. Because we dont quote whole articles anymore because its bad for the forum.
The final paragraph of the article makes no such mention of “ladies”.
And like... how do you read “you make people. You make all the people. And you want to be president, too, you fucking greedy bitches? What else do you want? You want bigger dicks than us?” And not think “yea that is misogynistic? Maybe his delivery makes it not so. That its actually clear he thinks the opposite and is mocking people who say those things... but i dont think that is the case. And it certainly did not come off as such to the author.
Ahhh last originally quoted paragraph, my bad:
.
And speaking of a lot: He uses the word lady a lot. “Ladies,” he went on, “you make people. You make all the people. And you want to be president, too, you fucking greedy bitches? What else do you want? You want bigger dicks than us?” “Ladies,” he went on some more, “I love you … but let’s be honest, you don’t invent a lot of shit.”
I understand if they wanna get upset over the crude humour but there was a certain unhappiness about the word itself there. If that’s only coming through to me than hey, no big deal.
Posts
Giving a safe space to bigots is the value of his format.
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.
Tell that to Bernie Sanders.
Right and my point is that that is a dumb analysis. The only way it's three sides is if you either put the whole left wing in one block but not the right one or you pretend that bigots are not on one part of the political spectrum. The fact that they are noxious doesn't mean they don't fall on the spectrum. Rogan has guests on from all over the political spectrum, it's just that one side is the one that sucks and the other side doesn't.
I mean, the regular conservatives are also a bunch of bigots.
And Ninjeff is also absolutely correct that right wingers would view Rogan as a liberal talking head, because that is just what they fucking do.
Has anyone told this to Bernie Sanders? I've tried looking for any press asking his opinion on Rogan and his show and coming out with nothing.
The press really doesn't care about this. This debate we're having is kind of unique.
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.
The press has shown an interest in this story, they know who Joe Rogan is.
https://www.newsweek.com/joe-rogan-praised-twitter-after-bernie-sanders-appears-podcast-debate-health-care-gun-laws-1453096
Honestly, I'm still having trouble with this post. Do you sincerely believe that Rogan is a mustache twirling villain? That promoting bigotry is literally his conscious agenda? Have you ever listened to the guy for 20 minutes?
I've been regularly looking for articles for a week now and the only thing that popped up was an excerpt featured in Weedmaps News
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.
Eh its basically a dead story at this point.
He doesn't have to be a "mustache twirling villain" to be providing a safe space to bigots.
In fact, being a useful fool, a bumbling idiot collaborator... in a lot of ways, that's better for the bigots. The better for them to exploit, with the extra deniability and legitimacy it provides
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Not what I asked. I wanted to know if tolrag legitimately believes that he is that mustache twirling villain, intentionally acting as an agonist for bigotry.
That said, how stupid do you have to be to want to give Alex Jones your time and not know what you’re doing?
If Rogan’s mind is so open his brains fell out, does it really make a difference?
He’s a wealthy celebrity with millions of followers; his responsibility to make informed, moral choices with his platform is immense
In other words, it doesn’t really matter how the poison got in the glass; you shouldn’t drink it, he shouldn’t offer it, and he definitely shouldn’t be mixing the punch for the Democratic party
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I mean, if you want to argue that there's no non-bigoted form of American conservatism, that's probably not a hard sell, but it seems like maybe we're talking around the point somehow.
Bigotry isn't a legitimate part of the political spectrum, it has no 'opposite side' equivalent, and a person who is platforming bigotry doesn't become 'neutral' somehow by virtue of the fact that they also talk to non-bigots.
We got onto this tangent, by my read, because it was suggested that while us left-wing types think Rogan is dangerous because he's platforming the alt-right, that's actually just our own bias and conservatives would think he's dangerously leftist because he platforms left-wing people too, the implication being that if the people on the left think he's helping the alt-right and the people on the right think he's helping the left, it must mean that he's really an unbiased source who lives in the middle and talks to everyone and not an alt-right gateway.
That line of argument is invalid for a whole grab bag of reasons, but the primary one is that the people he's platforming aren't 'conservative' in a sense you can balance by also talking to liberals, they're just transparently racist, islamophobic white supremacists. You can't 'balance' that with anything else - it is bad and dangerous, full stop, regardless of who else you might also be platforming, and the entire line of argument that stems from pointing to the other people Rogan talks to as some kind of defense against the criticism that he platforms neonazis is a meaningless distraction from the point.
And that's fine.
The problem here is however, that Rogan is exposing other people to poison, without telling them.
And to a lesser extent, so did Bernie by going to his show.
I feel like it is way beneath every candidate to call attention to people like Alex Jones specifically and would definitely backfire. I can't imagine doing something like that in the interview and not torpedoing the entire point of the interview.
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.
But going to a venue that gives Alex Jones, and people just as bad, if not worse than him, is in itself bad.
I am not very sympathetic towards the argument that doing the right thing would have been a bad thing, and doing a bad thing was the right thing (for Bernie).
Like, this is not a "never vote/banish into irrelevance" issue, but it is one where Bernie should be criticized and called out.
I'm pretty ambivalent. I don't know how much needs to change about how the democratic party relates to the public and gets the influence and power it needs to break out of this cycle we're in. Maybe it's normal and we'll be back on track next year finally without having to do anything special. In that case, i don't really care. Joe Rogan is some moderate popularity YouTube personality, and there are a billion of those.
Calling out him or Bernie - don't really feel strongly. I'm shortsighted and don't really feel like addressing the behavior of people I'm not actually talking to most of the time. Unless we agree on what he stands to win, I don't feel really excited to research or discuss what he stands to lose. I can just hand wave it and say that we don't really understand how all this works, which is more or less true. It all feels like extra credit, something that requires a lot of effort for little change or gain. It feels like we're cleaning behind the toilet, when all I really want to do is wipe down the seat.
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.
That's a cute line, but it's only kind of sort of halfway true. People's intentions are significant, both legally and morally. In any case, you guys keep responding to a specific question for a specific person with the nonanswer of "it doesn't matter." Yeah, yeah, I get that you don't care. I do, obviously, and I'm still waiting on the answer because it's significant to me.
But not when measuring, or avoiding, harm.
Our personal opinion (or legal liability) may depend on intentions and beliefs, but the effects of actions rarely do.
I found plenty.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/paloma/the-trailer/2019/08/13/the-trailer-sanders-has-a-bone-to-pick-with-the-media/5d52b62e88e0fa79e5481f58/?noredirect=on
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/aliens-bernie-sanders-if-elected-president_n_5d4cb2b6e4b01e44e477b338
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/bernie-sanders-government-ufos-aliens-870216/
https://www.thewrap.com/bernie-sanders-calls-democratic-presidential-debate-format-demeaning/
https://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/local/2019/08/08/bernie-sanders-appearance-joe-rogan-podcast-hits-number-one-top-trending-spot-youtube/1952708001/
https://jacobinmag.com/2019/08/bernie-sanders-joe-rogan-experience-podcast
https://kinja.com/api/profile/getsession?redirect=https://theslot.jezebel.com/setsession?r=https%3A%2F%2Ftheslot.jezebel.com%2Fbernie-sanders-will-not-scream-and-take-off-his-clothes-1837044931
That's on the first two pages of a Google search I did five minutes ago.
What's Weedmaps News?
The only result of a google news search for the interview that isn't as old as the interview itself, I think.
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.
It's not difficult to see what makes Rogan problematic - it just requires looking at what he actually says and does.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I take that article with a huge grain of salt. Lots of projection and conjecture. When someone claims to understand that someone is “internally seething” you know you’re just reading someone’s opinion page with no more credibility than a random forum post.
Yes, punditry is ultimately opinion by the nature of the format - but when done well, it's opinion driven by fact. Which is what is being outlined in the piece, by pointing out the patterns and what Rogan actually talks about.
Or to put it simply, he's using the more "polite" term of "ladies" to attempt to blunt his misogyny.
"Onstage, Rogan tends to wear the familiar uniform of chiseled men everywhere enjoying a night on the town: jeans, shiny button-down shirt, untucked, with a spread collar and unbuttoned cuffs, like his torso is a wine that needs to breathe. He stomps around as he performs, and his voice often rises to a shout, like Sam Kinison. In Strange Times, he complained that his critics believe he “hates gays and cats,” but he also seems ambivalent about women, especially Clinton, whom he described as “a lying old lady who faints a lot.”
"
So, you mean like, the exact same clothes almost every comic the world over wears. Or do you mean the universal "business casual" uniform of every office in America?
When did “lady” become misogyny? Did I miss something? Was there a new front in the culture war I slept through?
It's not "ladies" that was misogynistic - it was everything that came afterwards.
The article specifically calls out his frequent usage of “ladies”. Final paragraph.
'Ladies don't invent shit and shouldn't be in charge of stuff cause they have babies' is the whole bit.
It's also why my wife has spent years proving to a bunch of old white guys that girls can be engineers, and why her firm got denied for a hospital contract because the hospital administrators wanted an all Male team to do the design. Literally dinging the entire company because my wife helped make the proposal.
I don't know how many times I have to explain that my judgement of Rogan isn't based on someone else's observations. I've been watching his content and comedy for decades now. The misogyny is back there even if Joe is too fuckin dumb to realize he's participating in toxic masculinity and misogyny on a regular basis.
Yes, because he's using it to try to blunt his misogyny. It's an old trick of bigots - preface a vile comment with a "polite" form of address to make is seem less vile.
No. The final quoted paragraph calls it out and then provides two examples of the misogyny. Because we dont quote whole articles anymore because its bad for the forum.
The final paragraph of the article makes no such mention of “ladies”.
And like... how do you read “you make people. You make all the people. And you want to be president, too, you fucking greedy bitches? What else do you want? You want bigger dicks than us?” And not think “yea that is misogynistic? Maybe his delivery makes it not so. That its actually clear he thinks the opposite and is mocking people who say those things... but i dont think that is the case. And it certainly did not come off as such to the author.
It's sort of like how "African Americans" isn't racist, but geegollydonchaknow, my mother always just seems to use it in these funny contexts like "we have this African American boy at school and he is so polite and well-beheaved".
The extra formality is a tell.
Ahhh last originally quoted paragraph, my bad:
I understand if they wanna get upset over the crude humour but there was a certain unhappiness about the word itself there. If that’s only coming through to me than hey, no big deal.