I just listened to 2 1/2 hours of Joe Rogan you guys.
That makes like....
10 hours in the last week.
I'll let you know when i change into the alt-right. Maybe i'll get like...claws or something. Like a werewolf. Otherwise how will I know I've crossed the threshold?
“I’m comfortably orbiting on the outer rim of this funnel and that hole in the middle doesn’t look like anything to me”
If listening to somebody express their views and opinions doesn’t change some minds, why would Bernie give any interviews at all?
Its irritating because you keep insisting its a hole, and -frankly- ive been standing here for a long time and i'm pretty much 100% certain it isnt.
For you, it isn’t. Unfortunately not everyone is you in this regard.
Also, people who are having shitty toxic behaviors and ideas normalized for them rarely realize that it's happening or think that anything is changing or that the opinions they're being steeped in are anything other than normal and reasonable. That's practically what 'normalization' means.
Maybe you are orbiting the edge of the whirlpool and never getting any closer to the middle and you'll be fine forever - but do be aware that there's another guy somewhere else in the pool making the same sarcastic, defensive 'pfft I'm fine I'm not getting any closer to the alt-right, you guys just can't handle the idea that I listen to people you don't like. If you actually listened to my guy you'd know he's not the dangerous Nazi you make him out to be, he's actually pretty reasonable sometimes and the real problem is that you're too much of a fanatic to be able to listen to people who think differently from you' argument - but about Ben Shapiro or Richard Spencer instead of Joe Rogan, and that guy thinks he's way out on the safe shallow edge of the whirlpool, too.
Maybe i'll get like...claws or something. Like a werewolf. Otherwise how will I know I've crossed the threshold?
Well, you won't. That's how it works. You'll think that you're the same as you've always been and everyone else has just gotten too sensitive and melodramatic to be as unbiased and open-minded as you.
That seems awfully convenient.
"Hey, you'll never know you turned into a shit person, but its ok! because we are here to judge you!" Trust us!
Do you think shit persons know they are shit persons?
I just listened to 2 1/2 hours of Joe Rogan you guys.
That makes like....
10 hours in the last week.
I'll let you know when i change into the alt-right. Maybe i'll get like...claws or something. Like a werewolf. Otherwise how will I know I've crossed the threshold?
Man, I have read every post in this thread, and I appreciate some people who are fans of the show (or long time listeners, fan or not as they may be) providing context and insight into their experiences.
But posts like this aren't helping your case. It's a blind dismissal of the point that several forumers have been exceedingly clear in making.
The notion isn't that listening to the JRE (or Shaprio, or Peterson, or whomever) will, like the mutagenic ooze of TMNT fame, turn you into an anti-abortionist 2A loving goosestepping fascist within X hours of exposure.
It's that literally millions of people being exposed to this kind of normalizing content from extremely awful people is in itself worthy of concern.
I doubt many or any people will listen to JRE for 100 hours and then go shoot up a Walmart over that specific encounter, but he is obviously a person with a large platform, and at least part of the time he (from the articles and experiences shared here, including No-Quarter's deep dive) invites individuals with some rather awful stances onboard and just kind of chit chats. I don't expect every last person with an audience to be a hard hitting journalist fighting the wrongs of the world with every breath, but he provides a nice safe platform to some fairly despicable sorts.
To be charitable, it may be entirely coincidental. It may be entirely based on 'well, we get X views/listens/return on our time with some of these folks, get 'em on and lets rake in that money', but it isn't unreasonable to look at some of those alt-right/far right assholes and be nervous that providing them more platforms without substantial pushback (and no, I don't count the flat earther example in this) might be doing more harm than not.
I have no horse in this race. I've actually seen Joe Rogan perform standup comedy live, I enjoyed him on News Radio, and used to read his blog occasionally like, I dunno, 15-20 years ago. Until this thread, I'd forgotten he had a podcast, let alone one with this reach.
My basic read on this is "with great power comes great responsibility". His audience is power, and it is in question if he's doing them a disservice by bringing Jones, Peterson, and Shapiro on to just share a few laughs. Possibly irresponsible, even.
That you, personally, might be insightful and aware enough to avoid this influence doesn't mean that the other millions of people all are. With the rise of white nationalists, open racism, and all the bullshit going on in the US, perhaps it's not unreasonable to be a bit more aware of the figurative right wing background radiation that permeates north american society.
I don't expect Joe to drop everything and become a full throated hard lefty, taking Shapiro to task over proper use of pronouns in a two hour slam dunkfest, but shit, some self awareness of the raw awfulness some of these guests are propagating would be nice.
I'm on the fence with sorts like Bernie going on there. Perhaps attracting new folks to the JRE may or may not balance out. I rather liked the take that 'we have to take the (figurative) fight to them!' that was made, and simply conceding ground every time a toxic asshole steps into it is a losing strategy. Like debates being done not necessarily to convince the opposing side, but instead for the impartial onlookers, maybe there is more value to getting Sanders and others on there too. Whether or not that balances out, I have no idea, nor am I declaring it to be a simple cut and dry spreadsheet either.
Hawt taeks aside, there has been some thoughtful and nuanced opinions shared. 'lol I'm not a super villain yet' isn't fairly rebutting anything of worth shared here in these 1400+ posts, if I'm doing my math right.
Listen, i've tried to state my case multiple times. It was either ignored, or completely dodged. Mostly by people who not only admit, but almost brag that they dont listen to the very thing they are telling me is bad.
Its all the same eye rolling stuff i remember from when i was a kid and found metal music. All the parents and teachers and Tipper Gores and conservatives freaking out about how "heavy metal music is a gateway to satanism! violence! drugs! debauchery! Its evil! OMG HOW COULD YOU LET YOUR CHILD LISTEN TO SUCH FILTH! Just look at the tshirts"
For real. Thats what this reads like to me. Just a bunch of people telling me how awful something is and then every time i try and say "no you dont understand it. Its like _____" they tell me how wrong i am!
And sideways insult anyone that disagrees with the assessment, and then literally pat themselves on the back for NOT listening to it. Because, well, you see, they are just to virtuous to listen to such filth.
I mean, i dont give a flip about Rogan in the same manner i do music, and rock and metal specifically. But its the exact same bullshit from back then. Just a bunch of people who think they are holier than thou telling a bunch of other people how bad they are that they dont agree with them.
And, if i seem particularly irritated by that its because i became a "liberal" during my formative years because it was the party of artists and free thinkers and alternative views. Now it feels an awful lot like modern McCarthyism.
I've been watching Joe rogan and joe rogan's œuvre for decades, I've said this multiple times.
I am not looking from the outside, and I still listen to Rogan from time to time.
This is not some stupid ill informed satanic panic. Figuring out the mechanisms of recruiting extremists is a hobby of mine. Joe rogan plays a role in that system. Again this isn't some vacant pearl clutching cause he says bad stuff some times and that's all I know. This is coming from years of personal research into both his shows and comedy specials as well as various other extremist groups both purposefully and accidentally. As well as looking at how people I knew personally fell into those extremism holes. Again Joe Rogan played a role pretty much every time I was watching someone fall to extremism.
I'm not talking totally out of my ass on assumptions built from various bad clips. In fact the bad clips aren't the worst part. Fuck if he was just a fuckin trash goblin all the time it would be better. Then he wouldn't be so insidiously good at making even the most evil motherfuckers seem like nice people. The worst part is that he does seem reasonable most of the time, which is why folks don't notice the few times he introduces total fuckin brain poison to the conversation.
We can't keep asking, "where's all this stochastic terrorism coming from?" And saying we've gotta figure out how to stem that tide and then getting pissed at the answers just because we didn't get that we were consuming the propaganda as well.
I watch fuckin blue bloods cause my entertainment options are limited, but I'm not gonna sit there and deny that it is clearly fuckin propaganda that I'm watching just cause I happen to enjoy watching it every so often.
I'd love to hear more about this but it seems to exceed the scope of the thread. My hypothesis--currently lacking a sufficiently robust body of evidence for me to assert with confidence--is that regional, local and personal factors are more important and tend to be causally critical for the radicalization of individuals. A claim I've put forward earlier in the thread is that well-adjusted and prosocial people can engage with media like the JRE with no particular risk, and I'm very interested to know if your personal experiences include any that saw someone you thought was well-adjusted get pulled past the event horizon and into the black hole of white supremacy or other bigotry due primarily to their Rogan exposure.
TO be slightly fair to Sleep here.
Its is a common factor of most alt-rightists to have listened to and crossed paths with Shapiro and Peterson but i think that's correlation not causation exactly. Since those two people have appeared on Rogans podcast its reasonable to assume the same rascists have listened to Rogans podcast.
But, if i see a white supremacist in a Megadeth t-shirt i'm not going to blame the band and stop listening to them.
I just listened to 2 1/2 hours of Joe Rogan you guys.
That makes like....
10 hours in the last week.
I'll let you know when i change into the alt-right. Maybe i'll get like...claws or something. Like a werewolf. Otherwise how will I know I've crossed the threshold?
“I’m comfortably orbiting on the outer rim of this funnel and that hole in the middle doesn’t look like anything to me”
If listening to somebody express their views and opinions doesn’t change some minds, why would Bernie give any interviews at all?
Its irritating because you keep insisting its a hole, and -frankly- ive been standing here for a long time and i'm pretty much 100% certain it isnt.
For you, it isn’t. Unfortunately not everyone is you in this regard.
Also, people who are having shitty toxic behaviors and ideas normalized for them rarely realize that it's happening or think that anything is changing or that the opinions they're being steeped in are anything other than normal and reasonable. That's practically what 'normalization' means.
Maybe you are orbiting the edge of the whirlpool and never getting any closer to the middle and you'll be fine forever - but do be aware that there's another guy somewhere else in the pool making the same sarcastic, defensive 'pfft I'm fine I'm not getting any closer to the alt-right, you guys just can't handle the idea that I listen to people you don't like. If you actually listened to my guy you'd know he's not the dangerous Nazi you make him out to be, he's actually pretty reasonable sometimes and the real problem is that you're too much of a fanatic to be able to listen to people who think differently from you' argument - but about Ben Shapiro or Richard Spencer instead of Joe Rogan, and that guy thinks he's way out on the safe shallow edge of the whirlpool, too.
Maybe i'll get like...claws or something. Like a werewolf. Otherwise how will I know I've crossed the threshold?
Well, you won't. That's how it works. You'll think that you're the same as you've always been and everyone else has just gotten too sensitive and melodramatic to be as unbiased and open-minded as you.
That seems awfully convenient.
"Hey, you'll never know you turned into a shit person, but its ok! because we are here to judge you!" Trust us!
Do you think shit persons know they are shit persons?
Also, it’s not a case where it’s just outside people “here to judge you”.
It’s that the changes in a persons behavior when they are influenced by this type of media are slow and happen over a long period of time.
So much so, that to the individual they are just the same person they’ve always been. But to someone familiar with you, they are more likely to notice that change.
I had something very much like that happen to me at work. I transferred to a new position several years ago and when I got here I made friends with a coworker and we would frequently chat and often would go to lunch together.
Starting off he was somewhat conservative, as the things he would say sometimes would indicate as much. But no big deal, I grew up in ND my whole life, we just wont talk politics when we go to lunch.
But eventually he started to change, in very small ways. Instead of listening to music on the radio, his car was now tuned to talk radio. Then it wasn’t just talk radio, it was Rush and his show. Then he brought a radio in to have at his desk so that he could listen to conservative radio while he worked. Through this whole time he started being more and more loud about his conservative feelings, and now he’s a full on “AOC is the devil” cool-aid drinker and the two of us don’t really hang out or talk much anymore. We certainly don’t get lunch together anymore, and I’m sure he would say he’s the same person he always was.
I just listened to 2 1/2 hours of Joe Rogan you guys.
That makes like....
10 hours in the last week.
I'll let you know when i change into the alt-right. Maybe i'll get like...claws or something. Like a werewolf. Otherwise how will I know I've crossed the threshold?
“I’m comfortably orbiting on the outer rim of this funnel and that hole in the middle doesn’t look like anything to me”
If listening to somebody express their views and opinions doesn’t change some minds, why would Bernie give any interviews at all?
Its irritating because you keep insisting its a hole, and -frankly- ive been standing here for a long time and i'm pretty much 100% certain it isnt.
For you, it isn’t. Unfortunately not everyone is you in this regard.
Also, people who are having shitty toxic behaviors and ideas normalized for them rarely realize that it's happening or think that anything is changing or that the opinions they're being steeped in are anything other than normal and reasonable. That's practically what 'normalization' means.
Maybe you are orbiting the edge of the whirlpool and never getting any closer to the middle and you'll be fine forever - but do be aware that there's another guy somewhere else in the pool making the same sarcastic, defensive 'pfft I'm fine I'm not getting any closer to the alt-right, you guys just can't handle the idea that I listen to people you don't like. If you actually listened to my guy you'd know he's not the dangerous Nazi you make him out to be, he's actually pretty reasonable sometimes and the real problem is that you're too much of a fanatic to be able to listen to people who think differently from you' argument - but about Ben Shapiro or Richard Spencer instead of Joe Rogan, and that guy thinks he's way out on the safe shallow edge of the whirlpool, too.
Maybe i'll get like...claws or something. Like a werewolf. Otherwise how will I know I've crossed the threshold?
Well, you won't. That's how it works. You'll think that you're the same as you've always been and everyone else has just gotten too sensitive and melodramatic to be as unbiased and open-minded as you.
That seems awfully convenient.
"Hey, you'll never know you turned into a shit person, but its ok! because we are here to judge you!" Trust us!
It is fascinating to me that for you and several other people in here this seems to be so consistently about personal character judgment.
People post "Hey reaching Rogan's audience is important but we shouldn't do it by going on his show because the show manipulates its listeners in a way that pushes them towards a toxic worldview and the whole goal of pitching leftist ideas to them is to try to break through the shell of that worldview and offer them one that can actually help them instead."
and somehow the response to that idea is consistently about the nebulous Left "thinking it's too good to talk to people" or "writing off Rogan's audience as hopeless and abandoning them to the alt-right" or "parachuting in to lecture people for not being ideologically pure enough" or "judging them for being shit people".
It seems like this subject is deeply personal for some people in a way that is not actually very closely connected to what's being said in the thread.
I think the rejoinder to the claim that the JRE pushes listeners towards a toxic viewpoint is that the podcast does expose people to toxic, bigoted and wrong worldviews but doesn't "push" them because the podcast also exposes people to beneficial and socially conscious viewpoints.
I think the rejoinder to the claim that the JRE pushes listeners towards a toxic viewpoint is that the podcast does expose people to toxic, bigoted and wrong worldviews but doesn't "push" them because the podcast also exposes people to beneficial and socially conscious viewpoints.
Does it? I was told earlier in the thread that he doesn't push back on his guests. But I did find an example of that, entirely *against* socially concious viewpoints.
Picking sides is how we're getting into trouble by going round and round, since a lot of people with similar views differ on major points. I can't stand Joe Rogan because I can't stand podcasts, and I'm not going to go to bat for the view that he is a liberal or a conservative or whatever. I don't know if Bernie Sanders' appearance on his show is all that harmful, and I also don't know if it is effective. I think Abbalah brought up a nice logical idea about pageviews and actually listened when I gave my input regarding this uncertainty and then got trampled when trying out that logic, which greatly dismayed me. I said as much later.
Coming into a conversation as a neutral observer has its advantages, and in subjects like this eventually everyone has o pick a aside since it's a binary choice, Either you like what Rogan's doing or you don't, the details vary in where you fall but this is unavoidable. Except you've never truly been a neutral observer, dissecting both sides. You've analysed and criticised the anti-Rogan side strenuously while regularly taking the pro-Rogan side's opinions as gospel. Then when pressed on why you feel abut those stances fall back on "Just asking questions" and that this is subject beyond human understanding nobody will ever know. When various people on both sides have made considerable efforts backing up their claim with evidence and strong arguments.
Your stance on Rogan is news to me, as you haven't shown that much interest condemning his actions or those of his guests, despite many people giving you though essays about it. In some cases, you've shrugged it off completely.
Picking a side is expected, everyone does that in conversations.
Like, a page or so ago, in response to one of my responses, you said that "nobody is saying that no good will come of this," yet the post I was replying to specifically said that. I'm not saying your point is not worthy, but this habit points to the too rapid assignment of people into specific categories, assuming that everybody in your bucket agrees with you exactly as you envision your argument, and that everybody who disagrees with you embraces a rigid set of ideas. This is not true, and though the discussion is fast paced and blended enough to make such a method of thinking easier, it misses the details of the truth.
That there are minor discrepancies with posts feelings about thus subject don't mean they don't fit in categories. This thread is one where the battle lines are very obvious, it'd be foolish of me not to notice them and ignore their context in the discussion.
I was very interested in the beginning of this discussion, because I believed that people would be desperate enough to find the hidden key in social media to complete the puzzle of Democrats finally achieving the power in proportion to the best interests of their policies. I felt like there was this perennial underperformance problem with the way things are conventionally done, and I thought: "hm, this is actually a major moral dilemma. Will we experiment with the unknown to finally break the curse of the Democratic party?" It appears my thinking is outdated.
Why would Rogan be that "key?"
The democratic party has no curse, and at the rate things are going, we're going to reap big come 2020 as long as nobody messes up. There is no need to experiment or take risks.
Why would you think the part is cursed? Of course taking risky experiments is ok with politics, we just disagree that this is one that's worth it. This isn't a strategy the entire party is betting on Bernie Sanders to get it right or nobody will do anything experimental to win in '20.
So there was no real dilemma in this thread on either "side," no tough decision that could go either way, and no stakes. That's less interesting, but the underlying worries people aren't willing to come out and say - I'm picking them up, and those are fascinating to me.
Myself and others have given you concrete details with the stakes involved in Rogans platform. Rogan isn't an island in the media who exists in a vacuum, who he signal boosts has consequences, like in all media, and many of us have gone to great lengths to inform you of who these people are which are dangers and have proven to be dangerous in society, some have gotten threads about them before on this forum in the past. You've been given more than enough information to be up to date with the stakes and who the individuals are who have harmed society on Rogan's podcast.
This isn't about what's "interesting," we're discussing people who have hurt others and are active participants in the vile governmental and social upheavals happening in America as we speak, which has been covered in numerous threads in D & D from foreign policy to LGBT rights to immigration policies to conspiracy theories to gun rights. Many of Rogan's right wing guests have the influence to impact that environment, that's their job. They're not here to amuse you, Rogan's interviewing real people.
It appears that all of you have different concerns and fears that are poured out as quick-drying arguments, built upon brick by brick as soon as they're laid to race to the conclusion.
Which is good, it means we've put thought into our posts.
Like, jcmcdonald was asking "why haven't people acknowledged that anyone going on Joe Rogan's show is a bad move" and I responded by saying that social media works in complicated ways, which makes it difficult to determine whether this was a bad move, and you responded with "the complications of social media isn't relevant, the price paid to advance the agenda of the far left is" except it is relevant to me, because I'm way further back on the logical chain than you. You didn't actually follow up on my or jmcdonald's statement, because you're arguing with someone that isn't me.
The context was that it was Biden going on Rogan's show, and then you countered by using a bar metaphor which confused many of us. Social media in general is not a subject people haven't figured out, this is a deflection. As I've said upthread myself and others have pointed out valid reasons why going on Rogan's show is bad, yet your opinion heavily implies you don't think Shapiro, Owens or Jones are bad actors or that there is a risk of Bernie going on that show.
Your insistence about social media is off-topic, when we're discussing Bernie going on Rogan's show. I answered directly to your statements, which you didn't respond to when asked for clarification.
Do you think Bernie going on Rogans show was a good decision?
I don't know. I think the pathway to harm from going on Joe Rogan's show has a bunch of unproven steps that haven't been demonstrated. The bar metaphor was my thought on why people would perceive Biden going on vs Rogan going on. My opinion does not imply that people like Alex Jones aren't bad actors. There are weaknesses to arguments that rely on a series of untested assumptions. Interesting things can be important. The character of his guests has been reviewed repeatedly to a mirror polish, but the nature of signal boosting is far from simple or intuitive. I got my impression of the conservative approach to outreach and confidence in traditional methods from the quickness by which consideration of this method was dismissed. If battle lines are obvious, they shouldn't be - I'm sick of tribalism and want to talk to people, not blockades. I don't like what Rogan is doing. I don't not like what Rogan is doing. I can afford to withhold judgment because the key information I need to make a decision - whether Alex Jones and etc becomes popular again and whether Bernie wins the primary - will come naturally to me, and I won't even have to lift a finger.
I hope I answered all your concerns with my post.
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.
ROFL, I'm tired of posting that CNN had Richard Spencer up a month ago. I said before that it was a bullshit double standard and I stand for it. I get that you people hate alternative media because "if the NYT and Co. were the sole arbiters of truth then Trump wouldn't have been elected", but the MSM are no longer the ony game in town. Get over it.
Richard Spencer should not be on CNN. CNN has done numerous bad activities, however, as shown upthread they manage to push back at their guests and hosts than Rogan does. Which is saying something, since CNN is constantly screwing up on this front. That's how low the bar is and Rogan passed it.
Rogan's guests include many who al they do is propagate right wing propaganda, everywhere, and he's ok letting them ramble on unimpeded. Or do you think Shapiro, Petersen, Owens, McInness, and Jones are harmless?
We know they aren't "the only game in town," they made quite the impression when they helped Trump get elected.
ROFL, I'm tired of posting that CNN had Richard Spencer up a month ago. I said before that it was a bullshit double standard and I stand for it. I get that you people hate alternative media because "if the NYT and Co. were the sole arbiters of truth then Trump wouldn't have been elected", but the MSM are no longer the ony game in town. Get over it.
Richard Spencer should not be on CNN. CNN has done numerous bad activities, however, as shown upthread they manage to push back at their guests and hosts than Rogan does. Which is saying something, since CNN is constantly screwing up on this front. That's how low the bar is and Rogan passed it.
Rogan's guests include many who al they do is propagate right wing propaganda, everywhere, and he's ok letting them ramble on unimpeded. Or do you think Shapiro, Petersen, Owens, McInness, and Jones are harmless?
We know they aren't "the only game in town," they made quite the impression when they helped Trump get elected.
I thought about it, and the fact that CNN is only barely better than Rogan is a real indictment of a national news organization. Some people may trust Rogan, but x10000 people trust CNN x1000 more. CNN can't afford to be just 10x better than Rogan.
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.
The most convincing defense to me is definitely that rogan is not much worse than cnn or msnbc or the new york times at normalizing nazis
All those networks have put more effort into not normalising Nazis than Rogan ever did.
Harry Dresden on
0
Options
No-QuarterNothing To FearBut Fear ItselfRegistered Userregular
I feel like the pivots to CNN are nothing more than whataboutism.
"Rogan's an overly credulous moron who reguarly gives safe-harbor, signal boosts, and platforms to bigots, bigoted ideas, and provocateurs."
"But whatabout CNN, they had Spencer on once!"
Shapiro, Owen's, Petersen, Jones and the like aren't fixtures on CNN, but they are on Rogan. Probably because bigots are like stray cats, they're only coming around because they keep getting fed.
Picking sides is how we're getting into trouble by going round and round, since a lot of people with similar views differ on major points. I can't stand Joe Rogan because I can't stand podcasts, and I'm not going to go to bat for the view that he is a liberal or a conservative or whatever. I don't know if Bernie Sanders' appearance on his show is all that harmful, and I also don't know if it is effective. I think Abbalah brought up a nice logical idea about pageviews and actually listened when I gave my input regarding this uncertainty and then got trampled when trying out that logic, which greatly dismayed me. I said as much later.
Coming into a conversation as a neutral observer has its advantages, and in subjects like this eventually everyone has o pick a aside since it's a binary choice, Either you like what Rogan's doing or you don't, the details vary in where you fall but this is unavoidable. Except you've never truly been a neutral observer, dissecting both sides. You've analysed and criticised the anti-Rogan side strenuously while regularly taking the pro-Rogan side's opinions as gospel. Then when pressed on why you feel abut those stances fall back on "Just asking questions" and that this is subject beyond human understanding nobody will ever know. When various people on both sides have made considerable efforts backing up their claim with evidence and strong arguments.
Your stance on Rogan is news to me, as you haven't shown that much interest condemning his actions or those of his guests, despite many people giving you though essays about it. In some cases, you've shrugged it off completely.
Picking a side is expected, everyone does that in conversations.
Like, a page or so ago, in response to one of my responses, you said that "nobody is saying that no good will come of this," yet the post I was replying to specifically said that. I'm not saying your point is not worthy, but this habit points to the too rapid assignment of people into specific categories, assuming that everybody in your bucket agrees with you exactly as you envision your argument, and that everybody who disagrees with you embraces a rigid set of ideas. This is not true, and though the discussion is fast paced and blended enough to make such a method of thinking easier, it misses the details of the truth.
That there are minor discrepancies with posts feelings about thus subject don't mean they don't fit in categories. This thread is one where the battle lines are very obvious, it'd be foolish of me not to notice them and ignore their context in the discussion.
I was very interested in the beginning of this discussion, because I believed that people would be desperate enough to find the hidden key in social media to complete the puzzle of Democrats finally achieving the power in proportion to the best interests of their policies. I felt like there was this perennial underperformance problem with the way things are conventionally done, and I thought: "hm, this is actually a major moral dilemma. Will we experiment with the unknown to finally break the curse of the Democratic party?" It appears my thinking is outdated.
Why would Rogan be that "key?"
The democratic party has no curse, and at the rate things are going, we're going to reap big come 2020 as long as nobody messes up. There is no need to experiment or take risks.
Why would you think the part is cursed? Of course taking risky experiments is ok with politics, we just disagree that this is one that's worth it. This isn't a strategy the entire party is betting on Bernie Sanders to get it right or nobody will do anything experimental to win in '20.
So there was no real dilemma in this thread on either "side," no tough decision that could go either way, and no stakes. That's less interesting, but the underlying worries people aren't willing to come out and say - I'm picking them up, and those are fascinating to me.
Myself and others have given you concrete details with the stakes involved in Rogans platform. Rogan isn't an island in the media who exists in a vacuum, who he signal boosts has consequences, like in all media, and many of us have gone to great lengths to inform you of who these people are which are dangers and have proven to be dangerous in society, some have gotten threads about them before on this forum in the past. You've been given more than enough information to be up to date with the stakes and who the individuals are who have harmed society on Rogan's podcast.
This isn't about what's "interesting," we're discussing people who have hurt others and are active participants in the vile governmental and social upheavals happening in America as we speak, which has been covered in numerous threads in D & D from foreign policy to LGBT rights to immigration policies to conspiracy theories to gun rights. Many of Rogan's right wing guests have the influence to impact that environment, that's their job. They're not here to amuse you, Rogan's interviewing real people.
It appears that all of you have different concerns and fears that are poured out as quick-drying arguments, built upon brick by brick as soon as they're laid to race to the conclusion.
Which is good, it means we've put thought into our posts.
Like, jcmcdonald was asking "why haven't people acknowledged that anyone going on Joe Rogan's show is a bad move" and I responded by saying that social media works in complicated ways, which makes it difficult to determine whether this was a bad move, and you responded with "the complications of social media isn't relevant, the price paid to advance the agenda of the far left is" except it is relevant to me, because I'm way further back on the logical chain than you. You didn't actually follow up on my or jmcdonald's statement, because you're arguing with someone that isn't me.
The context was that it was Biden going on Rogan's show, and then you countered by using a bar metaphor which confused many of us. Social media in general is not a subject people haven't figured out, this is a deflection. As I've said upthread myself and others have pointed out valid reasons why going on Rogan's show is bad, yet your opinion heavily implies you don't think Shapiro, Owens or Jones are bad actors or that there is a risk of Bernie going on that show.
Your insistence about social media is off-topic, when we're discussing Bernie going on Rogan's show. I answered directly to your statements, which you didn't respond to when asked for clarification.
Do you think Bernie going on Rogans show was a good decision?
I don't know. I think the pathway to harm from going on Joe Rogan's show has a bunch of unproven steps that haven't been demonstrated. The bar metaphor was my thought on why people would perceive Biden going on vs Rogan going on. My opinion does not imply that people like Alex Jones aren't bad actors. There are weaknesses to arguments that rely on a series of untested assumptions. Interesting things can be important. The character of his guests has been reviewed repeatedly to a mirror polish, but the nature of signal boosting is far from simple or intuitive. I got my impression of the conservative approach to outreach and confidence in traditional methods from the quickness by which consideration of this method was dismissed. If battle lines are obvious, they shouldn't be - I'm sick of tribalism and want to talk to people, not blockades. I don't like what Rogan is doing. I don't not like what Rogan is doing. I can afford to withhold judgment because the key information I need to make a decision - whether Alex Jones and etc becomes popular again and whether Bernie wins the primary - will come naturally to me, and I won't even have to lift a finger.
I hope I answered all your concerns with my post.
They have, you just dont want to accept them, and ask for the steps to be proven AGAIN every time, its ridiculous at this point.
Yes, with a quick verbal "boom." You take a man's peko, you deny him his dab, all that is left is to rise up and tear down the walls of Jericho with a ".....not!" -TexiKen
Picking sides is how we're getting into trouble by going round and round, since a lot of people with similar views differ on major points. I can't stand Joe Rogan because I can't stand podcasts, and I'm not going to go to bat for the view that he is a liberal or a conservative or whatever. I don't know if Bernie Sanders' appearance on his show is all that harmful, and I also don't know if it is effective. I think Abbalah brought up a nice logical idea about pageviews and actually listened when I gave my input regarding this uncertainty and then got trampled when trying out that logic, which greatly dismayed me. I said as much later.
Coming into a conversation as a neutral observer has its advantages, and in subjects like this eventually everyone has o pick a aside since it's a binary choice, Either you like what Rogan's doing or you don't, the details vary in where you fall but this is unavoidable. Except you've never truly been a neutral observer, dissecting both sides. You've analysed and criticised the anti-Rogan side strenuously while regularly taking the pro-Rogan side's opinions as gospel. Then when pressed on why you feel abut those stances fall back on "Just asking questions" and that this is subject beyond human understanding nobody will ever know. When various people on both sides have made considerable efforts backing up their claim with evidence and strong arguments.
Your stance on Rogan is news to me, as you haven't shown that much interest condemning his actions or those of his guests, despite many people giving you though essays about it. In some cases, you've shrugged it off completely.
Picking a side is expected, everyone does that in conversations.
Like, a page or so ago, in response to one of my responses, you said that "nobody is saying that no good will come of this," yet the post I was replying to specifically said that. I'm not saying your point is not worthy, but this habit points to the too rapid assignment of people into specific categories, assuming that everybody in your bucket agrees with you exactly as you envision your argument, and that everybody who disagrees with you embraces a rigid set of ideas. This is not true, and though the discussion is fast paced and blended enough to make such a method of thinking easier, it misses the details of the truth.
That there are minor discrepancies with posts feelings about thus subject don't mean they don't fit in categories. This thread is one where the battle lines are very obvious, it'd be foolish of me not to notice them and ignore their context in the discussion.
I was very interested in the beginning of this discussion, because I believed that people would be desperate enough to find the hidden key in social media to complete the puzzle of Democrats finally achieving the power in proportion to the best interests of their policies. I felt like there was this perennial underperformance problem with the way things are conventionally done, and I thought: "hm, this is actually a major moral dilemma. Will we experiment with the unknown to finally break the curse of the Democratic party?" It appears my thinking is outdated.
Why would Rogan be that "key?"
The democratic party has no curse, and at the rate things are going, we're going to reap big come 2020 as long as nobody messes up. There is no need to experiment or take risks.
Why would you think the part is cursed? Of course taking risky experiments is ok with politics, we just disagree that this is one that's worth it. This isn't a strategy the entire party is betting on Bernie Sanders to get it right or nobody will do anything experimental to win in '20.
So there was no real dilemma in this thread on either "side," no tough decision that could go either way, and no stakes. That's less interesting, but the underlying worries people aren't willing to come out and say - I'm picking them up, and those are fascinating to me.
Myself and others have given you concrete details with the stakes involved in Rogans platform. Rogan isn't an island in the media who exists in a vacuum, who he signal boosts has consequences, like in all media, and many of us have gone to great lengths to inform you of who these people are which are dangers and have proven to be dangerous in society, some have gotten threads about them before on this forum in the past. You've been given more than enough information to be up to date with the stakes and who the individuals are who have harmed society on Rogan's podcast.
This isn't about what's "interesting," we're discussing people who have hurt others and are active participants in the vile governmental and social upheavals happening in America as we speak, which has been covered in numerous threads in D & D from foreign policy to LGBT rights to immigration policies to conspiracy theories to gun rights. Many of Rogan's right wing guests have the influence to impact that environment, that's their job. They're not here to amuse you, Rogan's interviewing real people.
It appears that all of you have different concerns and fears that are poured out as quick-drying arguments, built upon brick by brick as soon as they're laid to race to the conclusion.
Which is good, it means we've put thought into our posts.
Like, jcmcdonald was asking "why haven't people acknowledged that anyone going on Joe Rogan's show is a bad move" and I responded by saying that social media works in complicated ways, which makes it difficult to determine whether this was a bad move, and you responded with "the complications of social media isn't relevant, the price paid to advance the agenda of the far left is" except it is relevant to me, because I'm way further back on the logical chain than you. You didn't actually follow up on my or jmcdonald's statement, because you're arguing with someone that isn't me.
The context was that it was Biden going on Rogan's show, and then you countered by using a bar metaphor which confused many of us. Social media in general is not a subject people haven't figured out, this is a deflection. As I've said upthread myself and others have pointed out valid reasons why going on Rogan's show is bad, yet your opinion heavily implies you don't think Shapiro, Owens or Jones are bad actors or that there is a risk of Bernie going on that show.
Your insistence about social media is off-topic, when we're discussing Bernie going on Rogan's show. I answered directly to your statements, which you didn't respond to when asked for clarification.
Do you think Bernie going on Rogans show was a good decision?
I don't know. I think the pathway to harm from going on Joe Rogan's show has a bunch of unproven steps that haven't been demonstrated. The bar metaphor was my thought on why people would perceive Biden going on vs Rogan going on. My opinion does not imply that people like Alex Jones aren't bad actors. There are weaknesses to arguments that rely on a series of untested assumptions. Interesting things can be important. The character of his guests has been reviewed repeatedly to a mirror polish, but the nature of signal boosting is far from simple or intuitive. I got my impression of the conservative approach to outreach and confidence in traditional methods from the quickness by which consideration of this method was dismissed. If battle lines are obvious, they shouldn't be - I'm sick of tribalism and want to talk to people, not blockades. I don't like what Rogan is doing. I don't not like what Rogan is doing. I can afford to withhold judgment because the key information I need to make a decision - whether Alex Jones and etc becomes popular again and whether Bernie wins the primary - will come naturally to me, and I won't even have to lift a finger.
I hope I answered all your concerns with my post.
They have, you just dont want to accept them, and ask for the steps to be proven AGAIN every time, its ridiculous at this point.
Is Bernie bringing in people that watch Rogan's other shows? Does watching these other shows make people more accepting of those beliefs? Are the types of people he specifically brings in susceptible to those beliefs? Is a rebuttal of the core of these radical beliefs after the fact enough to defuse radicalization? Did regular viewers of Rogan get exposed to Bernie's beliefs? Were they convinced by Bernie's message? Are they substantial in number? Will that actually make a difference come election time?
There is evidence to support each of these logical claims. That evidence is crap, built on cherry picked testimonials and rough interpretations of unclean aggregate data like pageviews and subscriptions.
Notice that I didn't put in Are Rogan's guests bad and does Rogan challenge his guests, because those are points that have been answered with a preponderance of evidence. Over and over and over.
Paladin on
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.
Picking sides is how we're getting into trouble by going round and round, since a lot of people with similar views differ on major points. I can't stand Joe Rogan because I can't stand podcasts, and I'm not going to go to bat for the view that he is a liberal or a conservative or whatever. I don't know if Bernie Sanders' appearance on his show is all that harmful, and I also don't know if it is effective. I think Abbalah brought up a nice logical idea about pageviews and actually listened when I gave my input regarding this uncertainty and then got trampled when trying out that logic, which greatly dismayed me. I said as much later.
Coming into a conversation as a neutral observer has its advantages, and in subjects like this eventually everyone has o pick a aside since it's a binary choice, Either you like what Rogan's doing or you don't, the details vary in where you fall but this is unavoidable. Except you've never truly been a neutral observer, dissecting both sides. You've analysed and criticised the anti-Rogan side strenuously while regularly taking the pro-Rogan side's opinions as gospel. Then when pressed on why you feel abut those stances fall back on "Just asking questions" and that this is subject beyond human understanding nobody will ever know. When various people on both sides have made considerable efforts backing up their claim with evidence and strong arguments.
Your stance on Rogan is news to me, as you haven't shown that much interest condemning his actions or those of his guests, despite many people giving you though essays about it. In some cases, you've shrugged it off completely.
Picking a side is expected, everyone does that in conversations.
Like, a page or so ago, in response to one of my responses, you said that "nobody is saying that no good will come of this," yet the post I was replying to specifically said that. I'm not saying your point is not worthy, but this habit points to the too rapid assignment of people into specific categories, assuming that everybody in your bucket agrees with you exactly as you envision your argument, and that everybody who disagrees with you embraces a rigid set of ideas. This is not true, and though the discussion is fast paced and blended enough to make such a method of thinking easier, it misses the details of the truth.
That there are minor discrepancies with posts feelings about thus subject don't mean they don't fit in categories. This thread is one where the battle lines are very obvious, it'd be foolish of me not to notice them and ignore their context in the discussion.
I was very interested in the beginning of this discussion, because I believed that people would be desperate enough to find the hidden key in social media to complete the puzzle of Democrats finally achieving the power in proportion to the best interests of their policies. I felt like there was this perennial underperformance problem with the way things are conventionally done, and I thought: "hm, this is actually a major moral dilemma. Will we experiment with the unknown to finally break the curse of the Democratic party?" It appears my thinking is outdated.
Why would Rogan be that "key?"
The democratic party has no curse, and at the rate things are going, we're going to reap big come 2020 as long as nobody messes up. There is no need to experiment or take risks.
Why would you think the part is cursed? Of course taking risky experiments is ok with politics, we just disagree that this is one that's worth it. This isn't a strategy the entire party is betting on Bernie Sanders to get it right or nobody will do anything experimental to win in '20.
So there was no real dilemma in this thread on either "side," no tough decision that could go either way, and no stakes. That's less interesting, but the underlying worries people aren't willing to come out and say - I'm picking them up, and those are fascinating to me.
Myself and others have given you concrete details with the stakes involved in Rogans platform. Rogan isn't an island in the media who exists in a vacuum, who he signal boosts has consequences, like in all media, and many of us have gone to great lengths to inform you of who these people are which are dangers and have proven to be dangerous in society, some have gotten threads about them before on this forum in the past. You've been given more than enough information to be up to date with the stakes and who the individuals are who have harmed society on Rogan's podcast.
This isn't about what's "interesting," we're discussing people who have hurt others and are active participants in the vile governmental and social upheavals happening in America as we speak, which has been covered in numerous threads in D & D from foreign policy to LGBT rights to immigration policies to conspiracy theories to gun rights. Many of Rogan's right wing guests have the influence to impact that environment, that's their job. They're not here to amuse you, Rogan's interviewing real people.
It appears that all of you have different concerns and fears that are poured out as quick-drying arguments, built upon brick by brick as soon as they're laid to race to the conclusion.
Which is good, it means we've put thought into our posts.
Like, jcmcdonald was asking "why haven't people acknowledged that anyone going on Joe Rogan's show is a bad move" and I responded by saying that social media works in complicated ways, which makes it difficult to determine whether this was a bad move, and you responded with "the complications of social media isn't relevant, the price paid to advance the agenda of the far left is" except it is relevant to me, because I'm way further back on the logical chain than you. You didn't actually follow up on my or jmcdonald's statement, because you're arguing with someone that isn't me.
The context was that it was Biden going on Rogan's show, and then you countered by using a bar metaphor which confused many of us. Social media in general is not a subject people haven't figured out, this is a deflection. As I've said upthread myself and others have pointed out valid reasons why going on Rogan's show is bad, yet your opinion heavily implies you don't think Shapiro, Owens or Jones are bad actors or that there is a risk of Bernie going on that show.
Your insistence about social media is off-topic, when we're discussing Bernie going on Rogan's show. I answered directly to your statements, which you didn't respond to when asked for clarification.
Do you think Bernie going on Rogans show was a good decision?
I don't know. I think the pathway to harm from going on Joe Rogan's show has a bunch of unproven steps that haven't been demonstrated. The bar metaphor was my thought on why people would perceive Biden going on vs Rogan going on. My opinion does not imply that people like Alex Jones aren't bad actors. There are weaknesses to arguments that rely on a series of untested assumptions. Interesting things can be important. The character of his guests has been reviewed repeatedly to a mirror polish, but the nature of signal boosting is far from simple or intuitive. I got my impression of the conservative approach to outreach and confidence in traditional methods from the quickness by which consideration of this method was dismissed. If battle lines are obvious, they shouldn't be - I'm sick of tribalism and want to talk to people, not blockades. I don't like what Rogan is doing. I don't not like what Rogan is doing. I can afford to withhold judgment because the key information I need to make a decision - whether Alex Jones and etc becomes popular again and whether Bernie wins the primary - will come naturally to me, and I won't even have to lift a finger.
I hope I answered all your concerns with my post.
They have, you just dont want to accept them, and ask for the steps to be proven AGAIN every time, its ridiculous at this point.
Is Bernie bringing in people that watch Rogan's other shows? Does watching these other shows make people more accepting of those beliefs? Are the types of people he specifically brings in susceptible to those beliefs? Is a rebuttal of the core of these radical beliefs after the fact enough to defuse radicalization? Did regular viewers of Rogan get exposed to Bernie's beliefs? Were they convinced by Bernie's message? Are they substantial in number? Will that actually make a difference come election time?
There is evidence to support each of these logical claims. That evidence is crap, built on cherry picked testimonials and rough interpretations of unclean aggregate data like pageviews and subscriptions.
Notice that I didn't put in Are Rogan's guests bad and does Rogan challenge his guests, because those are points that have been answered with a preponderance of evidence. Over and over and over.
You are asking questions well outside the scope of the thread, if I understand correctly, you doubt if media can influence people at all. I would say "Obviously yes?", but dont quote me, I havent really read any recent studies that I can paste here, but the answer to your question should be easy to find... OR we can trust that advertisment and propaganda are not myths, that media does have the power to shape minds and that would answer your question, that exposure to media simpathetic to an ideology will make the audience simpathetic to that ideology as well.
Yes, with a quick verbal "boom." You take a man's peko, you deny him his dab, all that is left is to rise up and tear down the walls of Jericho with a ".....not!" -TexiKen
Picking sides is how we're getting into trouble by going round and round, since a lot of people with similar views differ on major points. I can't stand Joe Rogan because I can't stand podcasts, and I'm not going to go to bat for the view that he is a liberal or a conservative or whatever. I don't know if Bernie Sanders' appearance on his show is all that harmful, and I also don't know if it is effective. I think Abbalah brought up a nice logical idea about pageviews and actually listened when I gave my input regarding this uncertainty and then got trampled when trying out that logic, which greatly dismayed me. I said as much later.
Coming into a conversation as a neutral observer has its advantages, and in subjects like this eventually everyone has o pick a aside since it's a binary choice, Either you like what Rogan's doing or you don't, the details vary in where you fall but this is unavoidable. Except you've never truly been a neutral observer, dissecting both sides. You've analysed and criticised the anti-Rogan side strenuously while regularly taking the pro-Rogan side's opinions as gospel. Then when pressed on why you feel abut those stances fall back on "Just asking questions" and that this is subject beyond human understanding nobody will ever know. When various people on both sides have made considerable efforts backing up their claim with evidence and strong arguments.
Your stance on Rogan is news to me, as you haven't shown that much interest condemning his actions or those of his guests, despite many people giving you though essays about it. In some cases, you've shrugged it off completely.
Picking a side is expected, everyone does that in conversations.
Like, a page or so ago, in response to one of my responses, you said that "nobody is saying that no good will come of this," yet the post I was replying to specifically said that. I'm not saying your point is not worthy, but this habit points to the too rapid assignment of people into specific categories, assuming that everybody in your bucket agrees with you exactly as you envision your argument, and that everybody who disagrees with you embraces a rigid set of ideas. This is not true, and though the discussion is fast paced and blended enough to make such a method of thinking easier, it misses the details of the truth.
That there are minor discrepancies with posts feelings about thus subject don't mean they don't fit in categories. This thread is one where the battle lines are very obvious, it'd be foolish of me not to notice them and ignore their context in the discussion.
I was very interested in the beginning of this discussion, because I believed that people would be desperate enough to find the hidden key in social media to complete the puzzle of Democrats finally achieving the power in proportion to the best interests of their policies. I felt like there was this perennial underperformance problem with the way things are conventionally done, and I thought: "hm, this is actually a major moral dilemma. Will we experiment with the unknown to finally break the curse of the Democratic party?" It appears my thinking is outdated.
Why would Rogan be that "key?"
The democratic party has no curse, and at the rate things are going, we're going to reap big come 2020 as long as nobody messes up. There is no need to experiment or take risks.
Why would you think the part is cursed? Of course taking risky experiments is ok with politics, we just disagree that this is one that's worth it. This isn't a strategy the entire party is betting on Bernie Sanders to get it right or nobody will do anything experimental to win in '20.
So there was no real dilemma in this thread on either "side," no tough decision that could go either way, and no stakes. That's less interesting, but the underlying worries people aren't willing to come out and say - I'm picking them up, and those are fascinating to me.
Myself and others have given you concrete details with the stakes involved in Rogans platform. Rogan isn't an island in the media who exists in a vacuum, who he signal boosts has consequences, like in all media, and many of us have gone to great lengths to inform you of who these people are which are dangers and have proven to be dangerous in society, some have gotten threads about them before on this forum in the past. You've been given more than enough information to be up to date with the stakes and who the individuals are who have harmed society on Rogan's podcast.
This isn't about what's "interesting," we're discussing people who have hurt others and are active participants in the vile governmental and social upheavals happening in America as we speak, which has been covered in numerous threads in D & D from foreign policy to LGBT rights to immigration policies to conspiracy theories to gun rights. Many of Rogan's right wing guests have the influence to impact that environment, that's their job. They're not here to amuse you, Rogan's interviewing real people.
It appears that all of you have different concerns and fears that are poured out as quick-drying arguments, built upon brick by brick as soon as they're laid to race to the conclusion.
Which is good, it means we've put thought into our posts.
Like, jcmcdonald was asking "why haven't people acknowledged that anyone going on Joe Rogan's show is a bad move" and I responded by saying that social media works in complicated ways, which makes it difficult to determine whether this was a bad move, and you responded with "the complications of social media isn't relevant, the price paid to advance the agenda of the far left is" except it is relevant to me, because I'm way further back on the logical chain than you. You didn't actually follow up on my or jmcdonald's statement, because you're arguing with someone that isn't me.
The context was that it was Biden going on Rogan's show, and then you countered by using a bar metaphor which confused many of us. Social media in general is not a subject people haven't figured out, this is a deflection. As I've said upthread myself and others have pointed out valid reasons why going on Rogan's show is bad, yet your opinion heavily implies you don't think Shapiro, Owens or Jones are bad actors or that there is a risk of Bernie going on that show.
Your insistence about social media is off-topic, when we're discussing Bernie going on Rogan's show. I answered directly to your statements, which you didn't respond to when asked for clarification.
Do you think Bernie going on Rogans show was a good decision?
I don't know. I think the pathway to harm from going on Joe Rogan's show has a bunch of unproven steps that haven't been demonstrated. The bar metaphor was my thought on why people would perceive Biden going on vs Rogan going on. My opinion does not imply that people like Alex Jones aren't bad actors. There are weaknesses to arguments that rely on a series of untested assumptions. Interesting things can be important. The character of his guests has been reviewed repeatedly to a mirror polish, but the nature of signal boosting is far from simple or intuitive. I got my impression of the conservative approach to outreach and confidence in traditional methods from the quickness by which consideration of this method was dismissed. If battle lines are obvious, they shouldn't be - I'm sick of tribalism and want to talk to people, not blockades. I don't like what Rogan is doing. I don't not like what Rogan is doing. I can afford to withhold judgment because the key information I need to make a decision - whether Alex Jones and etc becomes popular again and whether Bernie wins the primary - will come naturally to me, and I won't even have to lift a finger.
I hope I answered all your concerns with my post.
They have, you just dont want to accept them, and ask for the steps to be proven AGAIN every time, its ridiculous at this point.
Is Bernie bringing in people that watch Rogan's other shows? Does watching these other shows make people more accepting of those beliefs? Are the types of people he specifically brings in susceptible to those beliefs? Is a rebuttal of the core of these radical beliefs after the fact enough to defuse radicalization? Did regular viewers of Rogan get exposed to Bernie's beliefs? Were they convinced by Bernie's message? Are they substantial in number? Will that actually make a difference come election time?
There is evidence to support each of these logical claims. That evidence is crap, built on cherry picked testimonials and rough interpretations of unclean aggregate data like pageviews and subscriptions.
Notice that I didn't put in Are Rogan's guests bad and does Rogan challenge his guests, because those are points that have been answered with a preponderance of evidence. Over and over and over.
You are asking questions well outside the scope of the thread, if I understand correctly, you doubt if media can influence people at all. I would say "Obviously yes?", but dont quote me, I havent really read any recent studies that I can paste here, but the answer to your question should be easy to find... OR we can trust that advertisment and propaganda are not myths, that media does have the power to shape minds and that would answer your question, that exposure to media simpathetic to an ideology will make the audience simpathetic to that ideology as well.
I understand your frustration with this ask, but I think all of that is much more easily proven by just waiting and monitoring what Bernie supporters actually do and say. We've got a pretty good baseline of their beliefs from the 2016 election. Let's see how that's changed in the coming months. Alright?
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.
Picking sides is how we're getting into trouble by going round and round, since a lot of people with similar views differ on major points. I can't stand Joe Rogan because I can't stand podcasts, and I'm not going to go to bat for the view that he is a liberal or a conservative or whatever. I don't know if Bernie Sanders' appearance on his show is all that harmful, and I also don't know if it is effective. I think Abbalah brought up a nice logical idea about pageviews and actually listened when I gave my input regarding this uncertainty and then got trampled when trying out that logic, which greatly dismayed me. I said as much later.
Coming into a conversation as a neutral observer has its advantages, and in subjects like this eventually everyone has o pick a aside since it's a binary choice, Either you like what Rogan's doing or you don't, the details vary in where you fall but this is unavoidable. Except you've never truly been a neutral observer, dissecting both sides. You've analysed and criticised the anti-Rogan side strenuously while regularly taking the pro-Rogan side's opinions as gospel. Then when pressed on why you feel abut those stances fall back on "Just asking questions" and that this is subject beyond human understanding nobody will ever know. When various people on both sides have made considerable efforts backing up their claim with evidence and strong arguments.
Your stance on Rogan is news to me, as you haven't shown that much interest condemning his actions or those of his guests, despite many people giving you though essays about it. In some cases, you've shrugged it off completely.
Picking a side is expected, everyone does that in conversations.
Like, a page or so ago, in response to one of my responses, you said that "nobody is saying that no good will come of this," yet the post I was replying to specifically said that. I'm not saying your point is not worthy, but this habit points to the too rapid assignment of people into specific categories, assuming that everybody in your bucket agrees with you exactly as you envision your argument, and that everybody who disagrees with you embraces a rigid set of ideas. This is not true, and though the discussion is fast paced and blended enough to make such a method of thinking easier, it misses the details of the truth.
That there are minor discrepancies with posts feelings about thus subject don't mean they don't fit in categories. This thread is one where the battle lines are very obvious, it'd be foolish of me not to notice them and ignore their context in the discussion.
I was very interested in the beginning of this discussion, because I believed that people would be desperate enough to find the hidden key in social media to complete the puzzle of Democrats finally achieving the power in proportion to the best interests of their policies. I felt like there was this perennial underperformance problem with the way things are conventionally done, and I thought: "hm, this is actually a major moral dilemma. Will we experiment with the unknown to finally break the curse of the Democratic party?" It appears my thinking is outdated.
Why would Rogan be that "key?"
The democratic party has no curse, and at the rate things are going, we're going to reap big come 2020 as long as nobody messes up. There is no need to experiment or take risks.
Why would you think the part is cursed? Of course taking risky experiments is ok with politics, we just disagree that this is one that's worth it. This isn't a strategy the entire party is betting on Bernie Sanders to get it right or nobody will do anything experimental to win in '20.
So there was no real dilemma in this thread on either "side," no tough decision that could go either way, and no stakes. That's less interesting, but the underlying worries people aren't willing to come out and say - I'm picking them up, and those are fascinating to me.
Myself and others have given you concrete details with the stakes involved in Rogans platform. Rogan isn't an island in the media who exists in a vacuum, who he signal boosts has consequences, like in all media, and many of us have gone to great lengths to inform you of who these people are which are dangers and have proven to be dangerous in society, some have gotten threads about them before on this forum in the past. You've been given more than enough information to be up to date with the stakes and who the individuals are who have harmed society on Rogan's podcast.
This isn't about what's "interesting," we're discussing people who have hurt others and are active participants in the vile governmental and social upheavals happening in America as we speak, which has been covered in numerous threads in D & D from foreign policy to LGBT rights to immigration policies to conspiracy theories to gun rights. Many of Rogan's right wing guests have the influence to impact that environment, that's their job. They're not here to amuse you, Rogan's interviewing real people.
It appears that all of you have different concerns and fears that are poured out as quick-drying arguments, built upon brick by brick as soon as they're laid to race to the conclusion.
Which is good, it means we've put thought into our posts.
Like, jcmcdonald was asking "why haven't people acknowledged that anyone going on Joe Rogan's show is a bad move" and I responded by saying that social media works in complicated ways, which makes it difficult to determine whether this was a bad move, and you responded with "the complications of social media isn't relevant, the price paid to advance the agenda of the far left is" except it is relevant to me, because I'm way further back on the logical chain than you. You didn't actually follow up on my or jmcdonald's statement, because you're arguing with someone that isn't me.
The context was that it was Biden going on Rogan's show, and then you countered by using a bar metaphor which confused many of us. Social media in general is not a subject people haven't figured out, this is a deflection. As I've said upthread myself and others have pointed out valid reasons why going on Rogan's show is bad, yet your opinion heavily implies you don't think Shapiro, Owens or Jones are bad actors or that there is a risk of Bernie going on that show.
Your insistence about social media is off-topic, when we're discussing Bernie going on Rogan's show. I answered directly to your statements, which you didn't respond to when asked for clarification.
Do you think Bernie going on Rogans show was a good decision?
I don't know. I think the pathway to harm from going on Joe Rogan's show has a bunch of unproven steps that haven't been demonstrated. The bar metaphor was my thought on why people would perceive Biden going on vs Rogan going on. My opinion does not imply that people like Alex Jones aren't bad actors. There are weaknesses to arguments that rely on a series of untested assumptions. Interesting things can be important. The character of his guests has been reviewed repeatedly to a mirror polish, but the nature of signal boosting is far from simple or intuitive. I got my impression of the conservative approach to outreach and confidence in traditional methods from the quickness by which consideration of this method was dismissed. If battle lines are obvious, they shouldn't be - I'm sick of tribalism and want to talk to people, not blockades. I don't like what Rogan is doing. I don't not like what Rogan is doing. I can afford to withhold judgment because the key information I need to make a decision - whether Alex Jones and etc becomes popular again and whether Bernie wins the primary - will come naturally to me, and I won't even have to lift a finger.
I hope I answered all your concerns with my post.
They have, you just dont want to accept them, and ask for the steps to be proven AGAIN every time, its ridiculous at this point.
Is Bernie bringing in people that watch Rogan's other shows? Does watching these other shows make people more accepting of those beliefs? Are the types of people he specifically brings in susceptible to those beliefs? Is a rebuttal of the core of these radical beliefs after the fact enough to defuse radicalization? Did regular viewers of Rogan get exposed to Bernie's beliefs? Were they convinced by Bernie's message? Are they substantial in number? Will that actually make a difference come election time?
There is evidence to support each of these logical claims. That evidence is crap, built on cherry picked testimonials and rough interpretations of unclean aggregate data like pageviews and subscriptions.
Notice that I didn't put in Are Rogan's guests bad and does Rogan challenge his guests, because those are points that have been answered with a preponderance of evidence. Over and over and over.
You are asking questions well outside the scope of the thread, if I understand correctly, you doubt if media can influence people at all. I would say "Obviously yes?", but dont quote me, I havent really read any recent studies that I can paste here, but the answer to your question should be easy to find... OR we can trust that advertisment and propaganda are not myths, that media does have the power to shape minds and that would answer your question, that exposure to media simpathetic to an ideology will make the audience simpathetic to that ideology as well.
I understand your frustration with this ask, but I think all of that is much more easily proven by just waiting and monitoring what Bernie supporters actually do and say. We've got a pretty good baseline of their beliefs from the 2016 election. Let's see how that's changed in the coming months. Alright?
That is moving the goalpost in a time-space way, you wondered if media could influence its audience, I think that it has been answered many times and that answer should be easy to find. To the question you asked, Bernies/JRE audience´s reaction is anecdotal, I cant describe the step by step process that goes inside someones head that makes them be susceptive to media influence, but at LEAST we can agree that media DOES influence people? Can you at least aknowledge that much without being an evading goose?
Yes, with a quick verbal "boom." You take a man's peko, you deny him his dab, all that is left is to rise up and tear down the walls of Jericho with a ".....not!" -TexiKen
Picking sides is how we're getting into trouble by going round and round, since a lot of people with similar views differ on major points. I can't stand Joe Rogan because I can't stand podcasts, and I'm not going to go to bat for the view that he is a liberal or a conservative or whatever. I don't know if Bernie Sanders' appearance on his show is all that harmful, and I also don't know if it is effective. I think Abbalah brought up a nice logical idea about pageviews and actually listened when I gave my input regarding this uncertainty and then got trampled when trying out that logic, which greatly dismayed me. I said as much later.
Coming into a conversation as a neutral observer has its advantages, and in subjects like this eventually everyone has o pick a aside since it's a binary choice, Either you like what Rogan's doing or you don't, the details vary in where you fall but this is unavoidable. Except you've never truly been a neutral observer, dissecting both sides. You've analysed and criticised the anti-Rogan side strenuously while regularly taking the pro-Rogan side's opinions as gospel. Then when pressed on why you feel abut those stances fall back on "Just asking questions" and that this is subject beyond human understanding nobody will ever know. When various people on both sides have made considerable efforts backing up their claim with evidence and strong arguments.
Your stance on Rogan is news to me, as you haven't shown that much interest condemning his actions or those of his guests, despite many people giving you though essays about it. In some cases, you've shrugged it off completely.
Picking a side is expected, everyone does that in conversations.
Like, a page or so ago, in response to one of my responses, you said that "nobody is saying that no good will come of this," yet the post I was replying to specifically said that. I'm not saying your point is not worthy, but this habit points to the too rapid assignment of people into specific categories, assuming that everybody in your bucket agrees with you exactly as you envision your argument, and that everybody who disagrees with you embraces a rigid set of ideas. This is not true, and though the discussion is fast paced and blended enough to make such a method of thinking easier, it misses the details of the truth.
That there are minor discrepancies with posts feelings about thus subject don't mean they don't fit in categories. This thread is one where the battle lines are very obvious, it'd be foolish of me not to notice them and ignore their context in the discussion.
I was very interested in the beginning of this discussion, because I believed that people would be desperate enough to find the hidden key in social media to complete the puzzle of Democrats finally achieving the power in proportion to the best interests of their policies. I felt like there was this perennial underperformance problem with the way things are conventionally done, and I thought: "hm, this is actually a major moral dilemma. Will we experiment with the unknown to finally break the curse of the Democratic party?" It appears my thinking is outdated.
Why would Rogan be that "key?"
The democratic party has no curse, and at the rate things are going, we're going to reap big come 2020 as long as nobody messes up. There is no need to experiment or take risks.
Why would you think the part is cursed? Of course taking risky experiments is ok with politics, we just disagree that this is one that's worth it. This isn't a strategy the entire party is betting on Bernie Sanders to get it right or nobody will do anything experimental to win in '20.
So there was no real dilemma in this thread on either "side," no tough decision that could go either way, and no stakes. That's less interesting, but the underlying worries people aren't willing to come out and say - I'm picking them up, and those are fascinating to me.
Myself and others have given you concrete details with the stakes involved in Rogans platform. Rogan isn't an island in the media who exists in a vacuum, who he signal boosts has consequences, like in all media, and many of us have gone to great lengths to inform you of who these people are which are dangers and have proven to be dangerous in society, some have gotten threads about them before on this forum in the past. You've been given more than enough information to be up to date with the stakes and who the individuals are who have harmed society on Rogan's podcast.
This isn't about what's "interesting," we're discussing people who have hurt others and are active participants in the vile governmental and social upheavals happening in America as we speak, which has been covered in numerous threads in D & D from foreign policy to LGBT rights to immigration policies to conspiracy theories to gun rights. Many of Rogan's right wing guests have the influence to impact that environment, that's their job. They're not here to amuse you, Rogan's interviewing real people.
It appears that all of you have different concerns and fears that are poured out as quick-drying arguments, built upon brick by brick as soon as they're laid to race to the conclusion.
Which is good, it means we've put thought into our posts.
Like, jcmcdonald was asking "why haven't people acknowledged that anyone going on Joe Rogan's show is a bad move" and I responded by saying that social media works in complicated ways, which makes it difficult to determine whether this was a bad move, and you responded with "the complications of social media isn't relevant, the price paid to advance the agenda of the far left is" except it is relevant to me, because I'm way further back on the logical chain than you. You didn't actually follow up on my or jmcdonald's statement, because you're arguing with someone that isn't me.
The context was that it was Biden going on Rogan's show, and then you countered by using a bar metaphor which confused many of us. Social media in general is not a subject people haven't figured out, this is a deflection. As I've said upthread myself and others have pointed out valid reasons why going on Rogan's show is bad, yet your opinion heavily implies you don't think Shapiro, Owens or Jones are bad actors or that there is a risk of Bernie going on that show.
Your insistence about social media is off-topic, when we're discussing Bernie going on Rogan's show. I answered directly to your statements, which you didn't respond to when asked for clarification.
Do you think Bernie going on Rogans show was a good decision?
I don't know. I think the pathway to harm from going on Joe Rogan's show has a bunch of unproven steps that haven't been demonstrated. The bar metaphor was my thought on why people would perceive Biden going on vs Rogan going on. My opinion does not imply that people like Alex Jones aren't bad actors. There are weaknesses to arguments that rely on a series of untested assumptions. Interesting things can be important. The character of his guests has been reviewed repeatedly to a mirror polish, but the nature of signal boosting is far from simple or intuitive. I got my impression of the conservative approach to outreach and confidence in traditional methods from the quickness by which consideration of this method was dismissed. If battle lines are obvious, they shouldn't be - I'm sick of tribalism and want to talk to people, not blockades. I don't like what Rogan is doing. I don't not like what Rogan is doing. I can afford to withhold judgment because the key information I need to make a decision - whether Alex Jones and etc becomes popular again and whether Bernie wins the primary - will come naturally to me, and I won't even have to lift a finger.
I hope I answered all your concerns with my post.
They have, you just dont want to accept them, and ask for the steps to be proven AGAIN every time, its ridiculous at this point.
Is Bernie bringing in people that watch Rogan's other shows? Does watching these other shows make people more accepting of those beliefs? Are the types of people he specifically brings in susceptible to those beliefs? Is a rebuttal of the core of these radical beliefs after the fact enough to defuse radicalization? Did regular viewers of Rogan get exposed to Bernie's beliefs? Were they convinced by Bernie's message? Are they substantial in number? Will that actually make a difference come election time?
There is evidence to support each of these logical claims. That evidence is crap, built on cherry picked testimonials and rough interpretations of unclean aggregate data like pageviews and subscriptions.
Notice that I didn't put in Are Rogan's guests bad and does Rogan challenge his guests, because those are points that have been answered with a preponderance of evidence. Over and over and over.
You are asking questions well outside the scope of the thread, if I understand correctly, you doubt if media can influence people at all. I would say "Obviously yes?", but dont quote me, I havent really read any recent studies that I can paste here, but the answer to your question should be easy to find... OR we can trust that advertisment and propaganda are not myths, that media does have the power to shape minds and that would answer your question, that exposure to media simpathetic to an ideology will make the audience simpathetic to that ideology as well.
I understand your frustration with this ask, but I think all of that is much more easily proven by just waiting and monitoring what Bernie supporters actually do and say. We've got a pretty good baseline of their beliefs from the 2016 election. Let's see how that's changed in the coming months. Alright?
That is moving the goalpost in a time-space way, you wondered if media could influence its audience, I think that it has been answered many times and that answer should be easy to find. To the question you asked, Bernies/JRE audience´s reaction is anecdotal, I cant describe the step by step process that goes inside someones head that makes them be susceptive to media influence, but at LEAST we can agree that media DOES influence people? Can you at least aknowledge that much without being an evading goose?
How media influences people is not exactly initiative. How many violent video games do I need to play until I decide to kill someone? If I watched only flat earth documentaries for a year would I begin to believe? Will watching liberal media really turn me gay (as some on the right have warned)?
The question follows: if you feel media influence is so important, so persuasive, so effective, why are you upset at your message being broadcast on a large platform? You should be broadcasting everywhere, anywhere!
Picking sides is how we're getting into trouble by going round and round, since a lot of people with similar views differ on major points. I can't stand Joe Rogan because I can't stand podcasts, and I'm not going to go to bat for the view that he is a liberal or a conservative or whatever. I don't know if Bernie Sanders' appearance on his show is all that harmful, and I also don't know if it is effective. I think Abbalah brought up a nice logical idea about pageviews and actually listened when I gave my input regarding this uncertainty and then got trampled when trying out that logic, which greatly dismayed me. I said as much later.
Coming into a conversation as a neutral observer has its advantages, and in subjects like this eventually everyone has o pick a aside since it's a binary choice, Either you like what Rogan's doing or you don't, the details vary in where you fall but this is unavoidable. Except you've never truly been a neutral observer, dissecting both sides. You've analysed and criticised the anti-Rogan side strenuously while regularly taking the pro-Rogan side's opinions as gospel. Then when pressed on why you feel abut those stances fall back on "Just asking questions" and that this is subject beyond human understanding nobody will ever know. When various people on both sides have made considerable efforts backing up their claim with evidence and strong arguments.
Your stance on Rogan is news to me, as you haven't shown that much interest condemning his actions or those of his guests, despite many people giving you though essays about it. In some cases, you've shrugged it off completely.
Picking a side is expected, everyone does that in conversations.
Like, a page or so ago, in response to one of my responses, you said that "nobody is saying that no good will come of this," yet the post I was replying to specifically said that. I'm not saying your point is not worthy, but this habit points to the too rapid assignment of people into specific categories, assuming that everybody in your bucket agrees with you exactly as you envision your argument, and that everybody who disagrees with you embraces a rigid set of ideas. This is not true, and though the discussion is fast paced and blended enough to make such a method of thinking easier, it misses the details of the truth.
That there are minor discrepancies with posts feelings about thus subject don't mean they don't fit in categories. This thread is one where the battle lines are very obvious, it'd be foolish of me not to notice them and ignore their context in the discussion.
I was very interested in the beginning of this discussion, because I believed that people would be desperate enough to find the hidden key in social media to complete the puzzle of Democrats finally achieving the power in proportion to the best interests of their policies. I felt like there was this perennial underperformance problem with the way things are conventionally done, and I thought: "hm, this is actually a major moral dilemma. Will we experiment with the unknown to finally break the curse of the Democratic party?" It appears my thinking is outdated.
Why would Rogan be that "key?"
The democratic party has no curse, and at the rate things are going, we're going to reap big come 2020 as long as nobody messes up. There is no need to experiment or take risks.
Why would you think the part is cursed? Of course taking risky experiments is ok with politics, we just disagree that this is one that's worth it. This isn't a strategy the entire party is betting on Bernie Sanders to get it right or nobody will do anything experimental to win in '20.
So there was no real dilemma in this thread on either "side," no tough decision that could go either way, and no stakes. That's less interesting, but the underlying worries people aren't willing to come out and say - I'm picking them up, and those are fascinating to me.
Myself and others have given you concrete details with the stakes involved in Rogans platform. Rogan isn't an island in the media who exists in a vacuum, who he signal boosts has consequences, like in all media, and many of us have gone to great lengths to inform you of who these people are which are dangers and have proven to be dangerous in society, some have gotten threads about them before on this forum in the past. You've been given more than enough information to be up to date with the stakes and who the individuals are who have harmed society on Rogan's podcast.
This isn't about what's "interesting," we're discussing people who have hurt others and are active participants in the vile governmental and social upheavals happening in America as we speak, which has been covered in numerous threads in D & D from foreign policy to LGBT rights to immigration policies to conspiracy theories to gun rights. Many of Rogan's right wing guests have the influence to impact that environment, that's their job. They're not here to amuse you, Rogan's interviewing real people.
It appears that all of you have different concerns and fears that are poured out as quick-drying arguments, built upon brick by brick as soon as they're laid to race to the conclusion.
Which is good, it means we've put thought into our posts.
Like, jcmcdonald was asking "why haven't people acknowledged that anyone going on Joe Rogan's show is a bad move" and I responded by saying that social media works in complicated ways, which makes it difficult to determine whether this was a bad move, and you responded with "the complications of social media isn't relevant, the price paid to advance the agenda of the far left is" except it is relevant to me, because I'm way further back on the logical chain than you. You didn't actually follow up on my or jmcdonald's statement, because you're arguing with someone that isn't me.
The context was that it was Biden going on Rogan's show, and then you countered by using a bar metaphor which confused many of us. Social media in general is not a subject people haven't figured out, this is a deflection. As I've said upthread myself and others have pointed out valid reasons why going on Rogan's show is bad, yet your opinion heavily implies you don't think Shapiro, Owens or Jones are bad actors or that there is a risk of Bernie going on that show.
Your insistence about social media is off-topic, when we're discussing Bernie going on Rogan's show. I answered directly to your statements, which you didn't respond to when asked for clarification.
Do you think Bernie going on Rogans show was a good decision?
I don't know. I think the pathway to harm from going on Joe Rogan's show has a bunch of unproven steps that haven't been demonstrated. The bar metaphor was my thought on why people would perceive Biden going on vs Rogan going on. My opinion does not imply that people like Alex Jones aren't bad actors. There are weaknesses to arguments that rely on a series of untested assumptions. Interesting things can be important. The character of his guests has been reviewed repeatedly to a mirror polish, but the nature of signal boosting is far from simple or intuitive. I got my impression of the conservative approach to outreach and confidence in traditional methods from the quickness by which consideration of this method was dismissed. If battle lines are obvious, they shouldn't be - I'm sick of tribalism and want to talk to people, not blockades. I don't like what Rogan is doing. I don't not like what Rogan is doing. I can afford to withhold judgment because the key information I need to make a decision - whether Alex Jones and etc becomes popular again and whether Bernie wins the primary - will come naturally to me, and I won't even have to lift a finger.
I hope I answered all your concerns with my post.
They have, you just dont want to accept them, and ask for the steps to be proven AGAIN every time, its ridiculous at this point.
Is Bernie bringing in people that watch Rogan's other shows? Does watching these other shows make people more accepting of those beliefs? Are the types of people he specifically brings in susceptible to those beliefs? Is a rebuttal of the core of these radical beliefs after the fact enough to defuse radicalization? Did regular viewers of Rogan get exposed to Bernie's beliefs? Were they convinced by Bernie's message? Are they substantial in number? Will that actually make a difference come election time?
There is evidence to support each of these logical claims. That evidence is crap, built on cherry picked testimonials and rough interpretations of unclean aggregate data like pageviews and subscriptions.
Notice that I didn't put in Are Rogan's guests bad and does Rogan challenge his guests, because those are points that have been answered with a preponderance of evidence. Over and over and over.
You are asking questions well outside the scope of the thread, if I understand correctly, you doubt if media can influence people at all. I would say "Obviously yes?", but dont quote me, I havent really read any recent studies that I can paste here, but the answer to your question should be easy to find... OR we can trust that advertisment and propaganda are not myths, that media does have the power to shape minds and that would answer your question, that exposure to media simpathetic to an ideology will make the audience simpathetic to that ideology as well.
I understand your frustration with this ask, but I think all of that is much more easily proven by just waiting and monitoring what Bernie supporters actually do and say. We've got a pretty good baseline of their beliefs from the 2016 election. Let's see how that's changed in the coming months. Alright?
That is moving the goalpost in a time-space way, you wondered if media could influence its audience, I think that it has been answered many times and that answer should be easy to find. To the question you asked, Bernies/JRE audience´s reaction is anecdotal, I cant describe the step by step process that goes inside someones head that makes them be susceptive to media influence, but at LEAST we can agree that media DOES influence people? Can you at least aknowledge that much without being an evading goose?
How media influences people is not exactly initiative. How many violent video games do I need to play until I decide to kill someone? If I watched only flat earth documentaries for a year would I begin to believe? Will watching liberal media really turn me gay (as some on the right have warned)?
The question follows: if you feel media influence is so important, so persuasive, so effective, why are you upset at your message being broadcast on a large platform? You should be broadcasting everywhere, anywhere!
You are missing the point made on the past 37 pages, first of all, Bernie´s audience was exposed to JRE, and not the other way around.
And saying that media has no influence on its audience is an incredibly bold claim, wich I already noted is tangent to the thread, but if you have doubts about the effects, look them up and then we can agree without a doubt.
The same arguing points being brought back over and over, it was already discussed in this exact thread why just going everywhere is not a good strategy, go re-read that. In fact, everything in your post has already been discussed.
Yes, with a quick verbal "boom." You take a man's peko, you deny him his dab, all that is left is to rise up and tear down the walls of Jericho with a ".....not!" -TexiKen
I think the thread is now repeating itself. Posters are saying the same things, but more loudly and with more frustration. The gamut of arguments has been given a run out from both sides, and this marketplace of ideas has seen everyone pretty much decide to hold on to the ones they had when they came in.
I'm not shutting the thread right now, but honestly it feels like it's run its course to me.
Picking sides is how we're getting into trouble by going round and round, since a lot of people with similar views differ on major points. I can't stand Joe Rogan because I can't stand podcasts, and I'm not going to go to bat for the view that he is a liberal or a conservative or whatever. I don't know if Bernie Sanders' appearance on his show is all that harmful, and I also don't know if it is effective. I think Abbalah brought up a nice logical idea about pageviews and actually listened when I gave my input regarding this uncertainty and then got trampled when trying out that logic, which greatly dismayed me. I said as much later.
Coming into a conversation as a neutral observer has its advantages, and in subjects like this eventually everyone has o pick a aside since it's a binary choice, Either you like what Rogan's doing or you don't, the details vary in where you fall but this is unavoidable. Except you've never truly been a neutral observer, dissecting both sides. You've analysed and criticised the anti-Rogan side strenuously while regularly taking the pro-Rogan side's opinions as gospel. Then when pressed on why you feel abut those stances fall back on "Just asking questions" and that this is subject beyond human understanding nobody will ever know. When various people on both sides have made considerable efforts backing up their claim with evidence and strong arguments.
Your stance on Rogan is news to me, as you haven't shown that much interest condemning his actions or those of his guests, despite many people giving you though essays about it. In some cases, you've shrugged it off completely.
Picking a side is expected, everyone does that in conversations.
Like, a page or so ago, in response to one of my responses, you said that "nobody is saying that no good will come of this," yet the post I was replying to specifically said that. I'm not saying your point is not worthy, but this habit points to the too rapid assignment of people into specific categories, assuming that everybody in your bucket agrees with you exactly as you envision your argument, and that everybody who disagrees with you embraces a rigid set of ideas. This is not true, and though the discussion is fast paced and blended enough to make such a method of thinking easier, it misses the details of the truth.
That there are minor discrepancies with posts feelings about thus subject don't mean they don't fit in categories. This thread is one where the battle lines are very obvious, it'd be foolish of me not to notice them and ignore their context in the discussion.
I was very interested in the beginning of this discussion, because I believed that people would be desperate enough to find the hidden key in social media to complete the puzzle of Democrats finally achieving the power in proportion to the best interests of their policies. I felt like there was this perennial underperformance problem with the way things are conventionally done, and I thought: "hm, this is actually a major moral dilemma. Will we experiment with the unknown to finally break the curse of the Democratic party?" It appears my thinking is outdated.
Why would Rogan be that "key?"
The democratic party has no curse, and at the rate things are going, we're going to reap big come 2020 as long as nobody messes up. There is no need to experiment or take risks.
Why would you think the part is cursed? Of course taking risky experiments is ok with politics, we just disagree that this is one that's worth it. This isn't a strategy the entire party is betting on Bernie Sanders to get it right or nobody will do anything experimental to win in '20.
So there was no real dilemma in this thread on either "side," no tough decision that could go either way, and no stakes. That's less interesting, but the underlying worries people aren't willing to come out and say - I'm picking them up, and those are fascinating to me.
Myself and others have given you concrete details with the stakes involved in Rogans platform. Rogan isn't an island in the media who exists in a vacuum, who he signal boosts has consequences, like in all media, and many of us have gone to great lengths to inform you of who these people are which are dangers and have proven to be dangerous in society, some have gotten threads about them before on this forum in the past. You've been given more than enough information to be up to date with the stakes and who the individuals are who have harmed society on Rogan's podcast.
This isn't about what's "interesting," we're discussing people who have hurt others and are active participants in the vile governmental and social upheavals happening in America as we speak, which has been covered in numerous threads in D & D from foreign policy to LGBT rights to immigration policies to conspiracy theories to gun rights. Many of Rogan's right wing guests have the influence to impact that environment, that's their job. They're not here to amuse you, Rogan's interviewing real people.
It appears that all of you have different concerns and fears that are poured out as quick-drying arguments, built upon brick by brick as soon as they're laid to race to the conclusion.
Which is good, it means we've put thought into our posts.
Like, jcmcdonald was asking "why haven't people acknowledged that anyone going on Joe Rogan's show is a bad move" and I responded by saying that social media works in complicated ways, which makes it difficult to determine whether this was a bad move, and you responded with "the complications of social media isn't relevant, the price paid to advance the agenda of the far left is" except it is relevant to me, because I'm way further back on the logical chain than you. You didn't actually follow up on my or jmcdonald's statement, because you're arguing with someone that isn't me.
The context was that it was Biden going on Rogan's show, and then you countered by using a bar metaphor which confused many of us. Social media in general is not a subject people haven't figured out, this is a deflection. As I've said upthread myself and others have pointed out valid reasons why going on Rogan's show is bad, yet your opinion heavily implies you don't think Shapiro, Owens or Jones are bad actors or that there is a risk of Bernie going on that show.
Your insistence about social media is off-topic, when we're discussing Bernie going on Rogan's show. I answered directly to your statements, which you didn't respond to when asked for clarification.
Do you think Bernie going on Rogans show was a good decision?
I don't know. I think the pathway to harm from going on Joe Rogan's show has a bunch of unproven steps that haven't been demonstrated. The bar metaphor was my thought on why people would perceive Biden going on vs Rogan going on. My opinion does not imply that people like Alex Jones aren't bad actors. There are weaknesses to arguments that rely on a series of untested assumptions. Interesting things can be important. The character of his guests has been reviewed repeatedly to a mirror polish, but the nature of signal boosting is far from simple or intuitive. I got my impression of the conservative approach to outreach and confidence in traditional methods from the quickness by which consideration of this method was dismissed. If battle lines are obvious, they shouldn't be - I'm sick of tribalism and want to talk to people, not blockades. I don't like what Rogan is doing. I don't not like what Rogan is doing. I can afford to withhold judgment because the key information I need to make a decision - whether Alex Jones and etc becomes popular again and whether Bernie wins the primary - will come naturally to me, and I won't even have to lift a finger.
I hope I answered all your concerns with my post.
They have, you just dont want to accept them, and ask for the steps to be proven AGAIN every time, its ridiculous at this point.
Is Bernie bringing in people that watch Rogan's other shows? Does watching these other shows make people more accepting of those beliefs? Are the types of people he specifically brings in susceptible to those beliefs? Is a rebuttal of the core of these radical beliefs after the fact enough to defuse radicalization? Did regular viewers of Rogan get exposed to Bernie's beliefs? Were they convinced by Bernie's message? Are they substantial in number? Will that actually make a difference come election time?
There is evidence to support each of these logical claims. That evidence is crap, built on cherry picked testimonials and rough interpretations of unclean aggregate data like pageviews and subscriptions.
Notice that I didn't put in Are Rogan's guests bad and does Rogan challenge his guests, because those are points that have been answered with a preponderance of evidence. Over and over and over.
You are asking questions well outside the scope of the thread, if I understand correctly, you doubt if media can influence people at all. I would say "Obviously yes?", but dont quote me, I havent really read any recent studies that I can paste here, but the answer to your question should be easy to find... OR we can trust that advertisment and propaganda are not myths, that media does have the power to shape minds and that would answer your question, that exposure to media simpathetic to an ideology will make the audience simpathetic to that ideology as well.
I understand your frustration with this ask, but I think all of that is much more easily proven by just waiting and monitoring what Bernie supporters actually do and say. We've got a pretty good baseline of their beliefs from the 2016 election. Let's see how that's changed in the coming months. Alright?
That is moving the goalpost in a time-space way, you wondered if media could influence its audience, I think that it has been answered many times and that answer should be easy to find. To the question you asked, Bernies/JRE audience´s reaction is anecdotal, I cant describe the step by step process that goes inside someones head that makes them be susceptive to media influence, but at LEAST we can agree that media DOES influence people? Can you at least aknowledge that much without being an evading goose?
Media influences people in unclear ways depending on a lot of factors, like the beliefs and other media from those involved, as you agree. For instance, Rogan's interactions with Alex Jones and other statements of his personal beliefs may affect people, just as Bernie's other statements of his personal beliefs and associations affect people that follow him. Maybe this cancels out? Maybe white supremacy wins? Maybe rejection of white supremacy wins?
I mean, this question is directly relevant to the case at hand. If Bernie's followers - or whoever - are mentally immunized against Alex Jones and company's machinations, that's not outside the scope of this thread, nor is it goalpost shifting. Your theory of harm has many moving parts. However, I do not have enough evidence to accept or reject my own theory.
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.
Picking sides is how we're getting into trouble by going round and round, since a lot of people with similar views differ on major points. I can't stand Joe Rogan because I can't stand podcasts, and I'm not going to go to bat for the view that he is a liberal or a conservative or whatever. I don't know if Bernie Sanders' appearance on his show is all that harmful, and I also don't know if it is effective. I think Abbalah brought up a nice logical idea about pageviews and actually listened when I gave my input regarding this uncertainty and then got trampled when trying out that logic, which greatly dismayed me. I said as much later.
Coming into a conversation as a neutral observer has its advantages, and in subjects like this eventually everyone has o pick a aside since it's a binary choice, Either you like what Rogan's doing or you don't, the details vary in where you fall but this is unavoidable. Except you've never truly been a neutral observer, dissecting both sides. You've analysed and criticised the anti-Rogan side strenuously while regularly taking the pro-Rogan side's opinions as gospel. Then when pressed on why you feel abut those stances fall back on "Just asking questions" and that this is subject beyond human understanding nobody will ever know. When various people on both sides have made considerable efforts backing up their claim with evidence and strong arguments.
Your stance on Rogan is news to me, as you haven't shown that much interest condemning his actions or those of his guests, despite many people giving you though essays about it. In some cases, you've shrugged it off completely.
Picking a side is expected, everyone does that in conversations.
Like, a page or so ago, in response to one of my responses, you said that "nobody is saying that no good will come of this," yet the post I was replying to specifically said that. I'm not saying your point is not worthy, but this habit points to the too rapid assignment of people into specific categories, assuming that everybody in your bucket agrees with you exactly as you envision your argument, and that everybody who disagrees with you embraces a rigid set of ideas. This is not true, and though the discussion is fast paced and blended enough to make such a method of thinking easier, it misses the details of the truth.
That there are minor discrepancies with posts feelings about thus subject don't mean they don't fit in categories. This thread is one where the battle lines are very obvious, it'd be foolish of me not to notice them and ignore their context in the discussion.
I was very interested in the beginning of this discussion, because I believed that people would be desperate enough to find the hidden key in social media to complete the puzzle of Democrats finally achieving the power in proportion to the best interests of their policies. I felt like there was this perennial underperformance problem with the way things are conventionally done, and I thought: "hm, this is actually a major moral dilemma. Will we experiment with the unknown to finally break the curse of the Democratic party?" It appears my thinking is outdated.
Why would Rogan be that "key?"
The democratic party has no curse, and at the rate things are going, we're going to reap big come 2020 as long as nobody messes up. There is no need to experiment or take risks.
Why would you think the part is cursed? Of course taking risky experiments is ok with politics, we just disagree that this is one that's worth it. This isn't a strategy the entire party is betting on Bernie Sanders to get it right or nobody will do anything experimental to win in '20.
So there was no real dilemma in this thread on either "side," no tough decision that could go either way, and no stakes. That's less interesting, but the underlying worries people aren't willing to come out and say - I'm picking them up, and those are fascinating to me.
Myself and others have given you concrete details with the stakes involved in Rogans platform. Rogan isn't an island in the media who exists in a vacuum, who he signal boosts has consequences, like in all media, and many of us have gone to great lengths to inform you of who these people are which are dangers and have proven to be dangerous in society, some have gotten threads about them before on this forum in the past. You've been given more than enough information to be up to date with the stakes and who the individuals are who have harmed society on Rogan's podcast.
This isn't about what's "interesting," we're discussing people who have hurt others and are active participants in the vile governmental and social upheavals happening in America as we speak, which has been covered in numerous threads in D & D from foreign policy to LGBT rights to immigration policies to conspiracy theories to gun rights. Many of Rogan's right wing guests have the influence to impact that environment, that's their job. They're not here to amuse you, Rogan's interviewing real people.
It appears that all of you have different concerns and fears that are poured out as quick-drying arguments, built upon brick by brick as soon as they're laid to race to the conclusion.
Which is good, it means we've put thought into our posts.
Like, jcmcdonald was asking "why haven't people acknowledged that anyone going on Joe Rogan's show is a bad move" and I responded by saying that social media works in complicated ways, which makes it difficult to determine whether this was a bad move, and you responded with "the complications of social media isn't relevant, the price paid to advance the agenda of the far left is" except it is relevant to me, because I'm way further back on the logical chain than you. You didn't actually follow up on my or jmcdonald's statement, because you're arguing with someone that isn't me.
The context was that it was Biden going on Rogan's show, and then you countered by using a bar metaphor which confused many of us. Social media in general is not a subject people haven't figured out, this is a deflection. As I've said upthread myself and others have pointed out valid reasons why going on Rogan's show is bad, yet your opinion heavily implies you don't think Shapiro, Owens or Jones are bad actors or that there is a risk of Bernie going on that show.
Your insistence about social media is off-topic, when we're discussing Bernie going on Rogan's show. I answered directly to your statements, which you didn't respond to when asked for clarification.
Do you think Bernie going on Rogans show was a good decision?
I don't know. I think the pathway to harm from going on Joe Rogan's show has a bunch of unproven steps that haven't been demonstrated. The bar metaphor was my thought on why people would perceive Biden going on vs Rogan going on. My opinion does not imply that people like Alex Jones aren't bad actors. There are weaknesses to arguments that rely on a series of untested assumptions. Interesting things can be important. The character of his guests has been reviewed repeatedly to a mirror polish, but the nature of signal boosting is far from simple or intuitive. I got my impression of the conservative approach to outreach and confidence in traditional methods from the quickness by which consideration of this method was dismissed. If battle lines are obvious, they shouldn't be - I'm sick of tribalism and want to talk to people, not blockades. I don't like what Rogan is doing. I don't not like what Rogan is doing. I can afford to withhold judgment because the key information I need to make a decision - whether Alex Jones and etc becomes popular again and whether Bernie wins the primary - will come naturally to me, and I won't even have to lift a finger.
I hope I answered all your concerns with my post.
They have, you just dont want to accept them, and ask for the steps to be proven AGAIN every time, its ridiculous at this point.
Is Bernie bringing in people that watch Rogan's other shows? Does watching these other shows make people more accepting of those beliefs? Are the types of people he specifically brings in susceptible to those beliefs? Is a rebuttal of the core of these radical beliefs after the fact enough to defuse radicalization? Did regular viewers of Rogan get exposed to Bernie's beliefs? Were they convinced by Bernie's message? Are they substantial in number? Will that actually make a difference come election time?
There is evidence to support each of these logical claims. That evidence is crap, built on cherry picked testimonials and rough interpretations of unclean aggregate data like pageviews and subscriptions.
Notice that I didn't put in Are Rogan's guests bad and does Rogan challenge his guests, because those are points that have been answered with a preponderance of evidence. Over and over and over.
You are asking questions well outside the scope of the thread, if I understand correctly, you doubt if media can influence people at all. I would say "Obviously yes?", but dont quote me, I havent really read any recent studies that I can paste here, but the answer to your question should be easy to find... OR we can trust that advertisment and propaganda are not myths, that media does have the power to shape minds and that would answer your question, that exposure to media simpathetic to an ideology will make the audience simpathetic to that ideology as well.
I understand your frustration with this ask, but I think all of that is much more easily proven by just waiting and monitoring what Bernie supporters actually do and say. We've got a pretty good baseline of their beliefs from the 2016 election. Let's see how that's changed in the coming months. Alright?
That is moving the goalpost in a time-space way, you wondered if media could influence its audience, I think that it has been answered many times and that answer should be easy to find. To the question you asked, Bernies/JRE audience´s reaction is anecdotal, I cant describe the step by step process that goes inside someones head that makes them be susceptive to media influence, but at LEAST we can agree that media DOES influence people? Can you at least aknowledge that much without being an evading goose?
How media influences people is not exactly initiative. How many violent video games do I need to play until I decide to kill someone? If I watched only flat earth documentaries for a year would I begin to believe? Will watching liberal media really turn me gay (as some on the right have warned)?
The question follows: if you feel media influence is so important, so persuasive, so effective, why are you upset at your message being broadcast on a large platform? You should be broadcasting everywhere, anywhere!
Radicalization is just manipulating people. It's convincing them of the reality you want them to believe, then convincing them they need to act on it. Manipulating people is less about saturation and more about rhythm. It isn't hitting them with the same idea over the head every day. It's about figuring out when to needle and prod, when to lean back, when to redirect the person or person's you're trying to manipulate, and when to let them wander to your ends on their own. Sometimes you gotta see where they are on the indoctrination and set up a situation so you can see how they run through it to see if they run through it the way you wanted them to, that kind of thing. It's why a lot of this is hard to track and precisely predict. Cause it, as a web, is being thrown wide and, inadverantly, seeing how many folks in the audience it gets to its end goal. The radicalization machine we're watching is only cognizant of itself in various small pockets. Generally by the time someone gets to a space in that radicalization machine that's cognizant of what it's doing and focusing individuals or small audiences... the jig is up you're going to have a hard time pulling em back, they're at this point basically like an addict that needs to hit rock bottom. It's ugly. The machine we're watching is vast and multifaceted, watching just one part of it won't get you the picture, and will make it seem like the machine isn't even there. That TV show I mentioned up there, blue bloods, it's a fuckin piece here, along side a bunch of other TV programming that's been running the past 20 years. The machine is vast, uncaring, and barely even knows it is a radicalization machine, it's really only the last few steps that know that they are breeding extremism of one stroke or another.
It's why we keep calling Rogan a piece in the puzzle. His role is to soften images. "That monster all these liberals are talking about can't be that bad, I heard him on Joe Rogan and him and Joe had a reasonable conversation, they can't be that bad" is a sentiment you'll often see repeated. I'll note, this is in fact exactly what he did for Sanders too, it's literally the good thing that makes it arguable this may be a good idea. all the comments from folks saying, "hey maybe sanders and all this socialism isn't actually all that bad", that's what Rogan does. It's why the argument that maybe this is actually a good idea is credible.
Unfortunately rogan will do that for literally anyone even if they are tenuously known as a shitty person. Usually once someone goes too radioactive even Rogan will maybe step back (he gets the basics of the media game at least to some extent). However if someone is still debatable in their shittiness, say some unfortunate questions start being risen about their character and past behavior, or isjusajokebro type stuff, he'll let them come on and either address that debate or leave it to the wayside to be forgotten while they spend 3 hours just shooting the shit with Joe Rogan and seeming super personable the whole time (which is again a thing I'm not entirely sure Rogan is aware other people are using him for).
It's why this was always a small concern, a minor "well Rogan is kinda shitty, just throw it on the pile of kinda dismissable shitty stuff and move on" type of situation. Because a singular incidence is likely not to significantly affect most folks indoctrination rhythm. Most people don't flip on a dime ideologically. It's why if we really wanted to dig into it we'd essentially have to start peeling back algorithms to see how overall viewing around both Sanders and Rogan changed after their meeting along side the wider trends of viewership that interact with neither. We live in a world where we could probably look at all of that and study it, but it's probably also wildly unethical to do so. I'd say it's impossible to say it didn't affect traffic and future traffic, but it is kinda impossible for us to conclusively say what those exact changes were.
The thing it definitely did, is raise Joe Rogans profile, I'm sure everyone here in this thread is now well fuckin acquainted if they weren't before (yaaaay). If Sanders gets the presidency... that's a historic hour long interview, of the president, by Joe Fuckin Rogan. That's, put it in the library of Congress and presidential records, type stuff. That's, make Joe rogan a historical figure, type stuff. That's an undeniable boost to his notariety, credibility, and assumably his reach. To soften the image of anyone willing to go on his show. Sure I can't give you the hard metrics on traffic to chart the exact changes in viewership. I can get into observations on viewership trends I've collected over the years by recording who around me watches Joe Rogan, how much and why, but that's probably getting far afield and more into the topic of the radicalization machine in general and hard metrics data is behind some wire fraud charges. I think it is still somewhat undeniable that someone who could possibly be the president will raise the profile of media agents that produce notable interactions with them. Especially should they become the president. It's literally made careers before.
While I do want our message everywhere I also want to make sure the people we're lifting up along side that message are good stewards of that message. If we leave it as is and socialism and leftism doesn't pop up in the space for some time and instead the indoctrination of the space turns to the right and they are not good stewards of the message then elevating them may have been a mistake.
I'm willing to grant that maybe the answer is to get more leftists and progressives on Rogan's show now. To start sucking up the air in the room and soften the image of leftism and progressive causes. Especially since we can't really put the genie back in the bottle here. If we grant that Sanders is raising Rogan's profile, it's a thing that's done, and maybe the only plausible response is to see if we can make headway in the space by filling up the time with less crazy right wing fringe. If Rogan's not in fact way more cognizant of his role than we give him credit for and is amenable to a bunch of democrats and socialists going on his show, I'm willing to grant that might be the best strategy moving forward now that we have to.
I'd still be disappointed we had to cajole Rogans show in the first place, and think the initial move is still bad because it makes Rogan more important than he ever should have been, but if we can control the space and make it a decent steward of the message then maybe that's the play to make now.
Yes, with a quick verbal "boom." You take a man's peko, you deny him his dab, all that is left is to rise up and tear down the walls of Jericho with a ".....not!" -TexiKen
Is there any interest in adding a layer or two of abstraction to the discussion so that it becomes less about Sanders and Rogan and more about the general question of the thread?
I think there probably are a few foundational principles or concepts that a majority of posters would agree with, and other principles where people might just be bringing different a priori positions to the table, and it would be interesting to me at least to explore where the overlaps are and where the disagreements are.
For example, I think a majority of posters would agree that it's fair to characterize a media platform as alt-right sympathetic if it provides a veneer of respectability to bigots or gives them an opportunity to expound on their ideas without significant pushback. A majority of posters would probably also agree that alt-right sympathy in media is a question of degree more than kind. I think there is probably a lot of disagreement about how one might assess how sympathetic a media platform is to the alt-right, but I'd also like to think that those are disagreements where people might be content to agree to disagree.
I'm sorry you feel that way. In short, I agree that media can affect people.
Paladin on
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.
Is there any interest in adding a layer or two of abstraction to the discussion so that it becomes less about Sanders and Rogan and more about the general question of the thread?
I think there probably are a few foundational principles or concepts that a majority of posters would agree with, and other principles where people might just be bringing different a priori positions to the table, and it would be interesting to me at least to explore where the overlaps are and where the disagreements are.
For example, I think a majority of posters would agree that it's fair to characterize a media platform as alt-right sympathetic if it provides a veneer of respectability to bigots or gives them an opportunity to expound on their ideas without significant pushback. A majority of posters would probably also agree that alt-right sympathy in media is a question of degree more than kind. I think there is probably a lot of disagreement about how one might assess how sympathetic a media platform is to the alt-right, but I'd also like to think that those are disagreements where people might be content to agree to disagree.
I think that there's a distinction to be made between media that has a Broderite compunction for bothsidesism and media that gives an uncritical platform to the alt-right. The former is problematic in that it feels compelled to treat any disagreement as legitimate, but not nearly as much as the latter giving the alt-right a soapbox.
I feel like the pivots to CNN are nothing more than whataboutism.
"Rogan's an overly credulous moron who reguarly gives safe-harbor, signal boosts, and platforms to bigots, bigoted ideas, and provocateurs."
"But whatabout CNN, they had Spencer on once!"
Shapiro, Owen's, Petersen, Jones and the like aren't fixtures on CNN, but they are on Rogan. Probably because bigots are like stray cats, they're only coming around because they keep getting fed.
I mean CNN has done a lot of heavy lifting on the atrocities America has committed around the world, and it's actually watched by policymakers. In DC they show adds for defense contractors.
CNN are essentially co-conspirators in the deaths of hundreds of thousands? millions? of people in the last 15 years
This isn't whataboutism, it's that if we're going to wholesale reject anyone who talks to Rogan, anyone who goes on CNN should also be rejected. I reject the premise, and I think we need more leftists on both CNN and Joe Rogan, because Joe Rogan will let a leftist talk about how the police systematically target African Americans or how corporate America basically owns everyone's lives and we need more of that. I don't think Rogan is going to get less dangerous to public discourse if leftists refuse to go on his show, and I don't think leftists are going to meaningfully convert to the alt right by watching his show (I think that a lot of the consternation comes from the mistaken idea that Bernie supporters are basically alt righters)
I want a thousand Bernise Sanders' to show up on Joe Rogan's show
Maybe I'm wrong, I might be, but I haven't seen convincing evidence that leftists abandoning open platforms to the right has any positive effect
override367 on
+5
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
CNN doesn’t put right-wing people on because there aren’t enough Democrats willing to go on TV
They choose to do that
You can’t just flood these media outlets, that’s not actually how it works
Maybe I'm wrong, I might be, but I haven't seen convincing evidence that leftists abandoning open platforms to the right has any positive effect
I wasn't aware that Joe Rogan was an "open platform." I thought you had to be invited.
Its more give and take than that. People send messages to producers, they market themselves, they try to be appealing to would be hosts, they ask to come on the show.
Its not an accident that alt right types come up everywhere, its the result of serious effort on their part.
Is there any interest in adding a layer or two of abstraction to the discussion so that it becomes less about Sanders and Rogan and more about the general question of the thread?
I think there probably are a few foundational principles or concepts that a majority of posters would agree with, and other principles where people might just be bringing different a priori positions to the table, and it would be interesting to me at least to explore where the overlaps are and where the disagreements are.
For example, I think a majority of posters would agree that it's fair to characterize a media platform as alt-right sympathetic if it provides a veneer of respectability to bigots or gives them an opportunity to expound on their ideas without significant pushback. A majority of posters would probably also agree that alt-right sympathy in media is a question of degree more than kind. I think there is probably a lot of disagreement about how one might assess how sympathetic a media platform is to the alt-right, but I'd also like to think that those are disagreements where people might be content to agree to disagree.
I think that there's a distinction to be made between media that has a Broderite compunction for bothsidesism and media that gives an uncritical platform to the alt-right. The former is problematic in that it feels compelled to treat any disagreement as legitimate, but not nearly as much as the latter giving the alt-right a soapbox.
I think that the distinction is valid but find that the "bothsidesism" of what I'll call mainstream outlets like CNN is worse because it's coupled with a predilection for sound bites which leads people to make snap judgments about things, as opposed to thoughtfully engaging with an extensive presentation. You see the risks inherent in giving a Nazi or some other flavour of bigot a soapbox, and I think those risks are real, I just think there's more silver lining that cloud. Talented critics can transform the soapboxing of bad people into the rope by which they are hanged, and if the soapbox is also open to decent people with good ideas, I remain optimistic that those good ideas can win out if they're presented well.
From where I stand, I can easily agree to disagree about which is worse because I think both are bad in their own ways but neither are so bad that they should be avoided in their entirety.
Maybe I'm wrong, I might be, but I haven't seen convincing evidence that leftists abandoning open platforms to the right has any positive effect
I wasn't aware that Joe Rogan was an "open platform." I thought you had to be invited.
He's pretty open to prominent leftists (sanders, cornell west, etc) talking on his show afaik
If he is letting alt righters on while refusing leftists then I retract everything and nobody should ever go on it, but I recall him having guests on like that baltimore PD guy that aired all the city's dirty laundry re: racially motivated policing and police as occupying army
I believe the ben shapiros of the world actively appeal Rogan's people to get on the show, and as such, they get on the show
Edit: what I meant by open platform wasn't that literally anyone could go on there, I meant that Rogan will more or less let his guests get their viewpoint out, at length, with as much detail as they'd like to - although it is a fallacy that he doesn't contest their viewpoints ... again from earlier I don't really watch his show anymore, but I do remember a Peterson interview where he more or less made Peterson look like a moron and got him to accidentally endorse authoritarian communism. That isn't being an apologist, he shouldn't platform some of these people AT ALL and I fundamentally disagree with Joe Rogan's views of the marketplace of ideas (to say nothing of how repugnant I find some of Rogan's personal beliefs), but it is important we not spread disinformation
override367 on
+1
Options
No-QuarterNothing To FearBut Fear ItselfRegistered Userregular
Edit: what I meant by open platform wasn't that literally anyone could go on there, I meant that Rogan will more or less let his guests get their viewpoint out, at length, with as much detail as they'd like to - although it is a fallacy that he doesn't contest their viewpoints ... again from earlier I don't really watch his show anymore, but I do remember a Peterson interview where he more or less made Peterson look like a moron and got him to accidentally endorse authoritarian communism. That isn't being an apologist, he shouldn't platform some of these people AT ALL and I fundamentally disagree with Joe Rogan's views of the marketplace of ideas (to say nothing of how repugnant I find some of Rogan's personal beliefs), but it is important we not spread disinformation
I crafted a whopping mammoth of a post only a few pages ago demonstrating that this isn't true in any really sense.
Edit: what I meant by open platform wasn't that literally anyone could go on there, I meant that Rogan will more or less let his guests get their viewpoint out, at length, with as much detail as they'd like to - although it is a fallacy that he doesn't contest their viewpoints ... again from earlier I don't really watch his show anymore, but I do remember a Peterson interview where he more or less made Peterson look like a moron and got him to accidentally endorse authoritarian communism. That isn't being an apologist, he shouldn't platform some of these people AT ALL and I fundamentally disagree with Joe Rogan's views of the marketplace of ideas (to say nothing of how repugnant I find some of Rogan's personal beliefs), but it is important we not spread disinformation
I crafted a whopping mammoth of a post only a few pages ago demonstrating that this isn't true in any really sense.
I think you may have mentally added "on bad social justice subjects" here. Still not something I concede, but I haven't taken the time to hunt down counter examples.
We already covered a number of examples that fit within that broader parameter you and override used, though. Joe did push back on Eddie Bravo on flat earth stuff, he pushed back on Candace Owens on climate change and other things, and he pushed back on Adam Conover on both transgender issues and the idea that we should let go of our ideals of fairness in sports.
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
"Talking to undesirables makes you an undesirable" is a poisonous Fucking attitude.
CNN has higher standards of fighting back against terrible conservatives like Shapiro then Joe Rogan. Rogan's not "talking" to them, he's normalising them.
ROFL, I'm tired of posting that CNN had Richard Spencer up a month ago. I said before that it was a bullshit double standard and I stand for it. I get that you people hate alternative media because "if the NYT and Co. were the sole arbiters of truth then Trump wouldn't have been elected", but the MSM are no longer the ony game in town. Get over it.
I'm tired of posting that having him on for 10 minutes to provide "a different perspective," is, while bad and should be criticised, is also quite different than giving him four hours unchallenged, which is what Rogan does.
Rogan has never had Richard Spencer, an actual proud white supremacist, on his show.
Think it false equivalence or whatever all you want, but I'd like to point out that one of the primary arguments in this thread is the Rogan-as-gateway theory. Where listeners follow the guests to other guests to end up deep in the alt-right ecosystem. e.g. Rogan to Rubin to Tim Pool to Andy Warski to Spencer. Not Rogan to Spencer.
I do agree the two are quite different though. I think letting Richard "Open White Supremacist" Spencer provide "a different perspective"(!) for 10 minutes is much worse. He is a literal Nazi, not just some regular bigoted dumbass like Shapiro or Peterson, who are just regular conservatives that understand the internet and new media.
The main problem I see with his detractors in this thread is that Rogan isn't as liberal as people think he ought to be. Which for a ~50 year old dude is pretty much a lost cause. He is never going to be liberal enough for a 20 year old. Hell, I'm probably not liberal enough for some of the people here.
"Talking to undesirables makes you an undesirable" is a poisonous Fucking attitude.
CNN has higher standards of fighting back against terrible conservatives like Shapiro then Joe Rogan. Rogan's not "talking" to them, he's normalising them.
ROFL, I'm tired of posting that CNN had Richard Spencer up a month ago. I said before that it was a bullshit double standard and I stand for it. I get that you people hate alternative media because "if the NYT and Co. were the sole arbiters of truth then Trump wouldn't have been elected", but the MSM are no longer the ony game in town. Get over it.
I'm tired of posting that having him on for 10 minutes to provide "a different perspective," is, while bad and should be criticised, is also quite different than giving him four hours unchallenged, which is what Rogan does.
Rogan has never had Richard Spencer, an actual proud white supremacist, on his show.
Think it false equivalence or whatever all you want, but I'd like to point out that one of the primary arguments in this thread is the Rogan-as-gateway theory. Where listeners follow the guests to other guests to end up deep in the alt-right ecosystem. e.g. Rogan to Rubin to Tim Pool to Andy Warski to Spencer. Not Rogan to Spencer.
I do agree the two are quite different though. I think letting Richard "Open White Supremacist" Spencer provide "a different perspective"(!) for 10 minutes is much worse. He is a literal Nazi, not just some regular bigoted dumbass like Shapiro or Peterson, who are just regular conservatives that understand the internet and new media.
"Just some regular bigoted dumbass like Shapiro or Peterson, who are just regular conservatives"
That they've managed to shift the Overton window enough to now be considered "regular conservatives" is what I'm concerned about, and providing them with an uncritical platform is how they've accomplished that shift!
Richard Spencer is a piece of shit and shouldn't be seen in daylight. I don't think giving him any air time is good, but holy hell if he appears on CNN at least there's going to be someone who disagrees with him as well and/or a newsperson who will call him on a bald-faced lie. And they clearly have him on as the counter to whatever reasonable points are being made by the not-racist Nazi.
But ultimately, they have him on because they are laboring under a misguided delusion that all mass-media outlets are suffering from, that both sides to every issue must have valid points to make. And why is it this delusion persists? Because folks like Shapiro or Peterson, et al., who present ideas very similar to Richard Spencer's ideas - ideological wolves dressed in euphemistic wool!
Joe Rogan is this all the problems of CNN, etc., turned up to 11. He has somebody on for hours and hours and there isn't anyone to counter them. Nah, just hanging out and shooting the shit with 'em!
So what if he says to Candice Owens, "hey, what you said about climate change, I think that's wrong?" What about all the other bullshit she spouted during all that time on his show, lies about racial inequality or the real cause of the civil war or whatever the fuck she was saying during that same episode? Haha, they're all so relatable, fuck, guess I'll check out whatever they're peddling - that's how radicalization works.
DarkPrimus on
+1
Options
No-QuarterNothing To FearBut Fear ItselfRegistered Userregular
The main problem I see with his detractors in this thread is that Rogan isn't as liberal as people think he ought to be. Which for a ~50 year old dude is pretty much a lost cause. He is never going to be liberal enough for a 20 year old. Hell, I'm probably not liberal enough for some of the people here.
You can be not liberal and still not give oxygen to people like Shapiro, Owens, and Jones. This isn't very hard.
+6
Options
No-QuarterNothing To FearBut Fear ItselfRegistered Userregular
Edit: what I meant by open platform wasn't that literally anyone could go on there, I meant that Rogan will more or less let his guests get their viewpoint out, at length, with as much detail as they'd like to - although it is a fallacy that he doesn't contest their viewpoints ... again from earlier I don't really watch his show anymore, but I do remember a Peterson interview where he more or less made Peterson look like a moron and got him to accidentally endorse authoritarian communism. That isn't being an apologist, he shouldn't platform some of these people AT ALL and I fundamentally disagree with Joe Rogan's views of the marketplace of ideas (to say nothing of how repugnant I find some of Rogan's personal beliefs), but it is important we not spread disinformation
I crafted a whopping mammoth of a post only a few pages ago demonstrating that this isn't true in any really sense.
I think you may have mentally added "on bad social justice subjects" here. Still not something I concede, but I haven't taken the time to hunt down counter examples.
We already covered a number of examples that fit within that broader parameter you and override used, though. Joe did push back on Eddie Bravo on flat earth stuff, he pushed back on Candace Owens on climate change and other things, and he pushed back on Adam Conover on both transgender issues and the idea that we should let go of our ideals of fairness in sports.
That's the best you've got?
Rogan parroted the narrative that Seth Rich was totes murdered by Clinton, bruh and spread the smear that Antifa are a bunch of thugs from Ngo, and yet for some reason the jury is still out for you about whether or not this guy is somehow a neutral arbiter, and not an alt-right friendly useful idiot.
+8
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
"Talking to undesirables makes you an undesirable" is a poisonous Fucking attitude.
CNN has higher standards of fighting back against terrible conservatives like Shapiro then Joe Rogan. Rogan's not "talking" to them, he's normalising them.
ROFL, I'm tired of posting that CNN had Richard Spencer up a month ago. I said before that it was a bullshit double standard and I stand for it. I get that you people hate alternative media because "if the NYT and Co. were the sole arbiters of truth then Trump wouldn't have been elected", but the MSM are no longer the ony game in town. Get over it.
I'm tired of posting that having him on for 10 minutes to provide "a different perspective," is, while bad and should be criticised, is also quite different than giving him four hours unchallenged, which is what Rogan does.
Rogan has never had Richard Spencer, an actual proud white supremacist, on his show.
Think it false equivalence or whatever all you want, but I'd like to point out that one of the primary arguments in this thread is the Rogan-as-gateway theory. Where listeners follow the guests to other guests to end up deep in the alt-right ecosystem. e.g. Rogan to Rubin to Tim Pool to Andy Warski to Spencer. Not Rogan to Spencer.
I do agree the two are quite different though. I think letting Richard "Open White Supremacist" Spencer provide "a different perspective"(!) for 10 minutes is much worse. He is a literal Nazi, not just some regular bigoted dumbass like Shapiro or Peterson, who are just regular conservatives that understand the internet and new media.
"Just some regular bigoted dumbass like Shapiro or Peterson, who are just regular conservatives"
That they've managed to shift the Overton window enough to now be considered "regular conservatives" is what I'm concerned about, and providing them with an uncritical platform is how they've accomplished that shift!
They have absolutely not shifted the window. Their ideas have always been part of regular conservative beliefs. They're just basic bigots.
Richard Spencer is a piece of shit and shouldn't be seen in daylight. I don't think giving him any air time is good, but holy hell if he appears on CNN at least there's going to be someone who disagrees with him as well and/or a newsperson who will call him on a bald-faced lie. And they clearly have him on as the counter to whatever reasonable points are being made by the not-racist Nazi.
They absolutely did no such thing. They did with the literal literal Nazi, but Spencer just got to explain how Trump was losing the real white supremacist vote like he is some honest constituency.
But ultimately, they have him on because they are laboring under a misguided delusion that all mass-media outlets are suffering from, that both sides to every issue must have valid points to make. And why is it this delusion persists? Because folks like Shapiro or Peterson, et al., who present ideas very similar to Richard Spencer's ideas - ideological wolves dressed in euphemistic wool!
Joe Rogan is this all the problems of CNN, etc., turned up to 11. He has somebody on for hours and hours and there isn't anyone to counter them. Nah, just hanging out and shooting the shit with 'em!
Ok but he still didn't just let a nazi talk. Shapiro may be a wolf in sheep's clothing, but he's not a wolf in just regular wolf clothes. Also, Rogan guests usually have talked for hours and hours in loads of other legitimate places. My dad didn't start talking to me about JB Peterson because he heard him on an episode of Rogan! Mass-media outlets don't suffer the delusion that these guys are legitimate because they appear on Rogan.
Posts
TO be slightly fair to Sleep here.
Its is a common factor of most alt-rightists to have listened to and crossed paths with Shapiro and Peterson but i think that's correlation not causation exactly. Since those two people have appeared on Rogans podcast its reasonable to assume the same rascists have listened to Rogans podcast.
But, if i see a white supremacist in a Megadeth t-shirt i'm not going to blame the band and stop listening to them.
Also, it’s not a case where it’s just outside people “here to judge you”.
It’s that the changes in a persons behavior when they are influenced by this type of media are slow and happen over a long period of time.
So much so, that to the individual they are just the same person they’ve always been. But to someone familiar with you, they are more likely to notice that change.
I had something very much like that happen to me at work. I transferred to a new position several years ago and when I got here I made friends with a coworker and we would frequently chat and often would go to lunch together.
Starting off he was somewhat conservative, as the things he would say sometimes would indicate as much. But no big deal, I grew up in ND my whole life, we just wont talk politics when we go to lunch.
But eventually he started to change, in very small ways. Instead of listening to music on the radio, his car was now tuned to talk radio. Then it wasn’t just talk radio, it was Rush and his show. Then he brought a radio in to have at his desk so that he could listen to conservative radio while he worked. Through this whole time he started being more and more loud about his conservative feelings, and now he’s a full on “AOC is the devil” cool-aid drinker and the two of us don’t really hang out or talk much anymore. We certainly don’t get lunch together anymore, and I’m sure he would say he’s the same person he always was.
It is fascinating to me that for you and several other people in here this seems to be so consistently about personal character judgment.
People post "Hey reaching Rogan's audience is important but we shouldn't do it by going on his show because the show manipulates its listeners in a way that pushes them towards a toxic worldview and the whole goal of pitching leftist ideas to them is to try to break through the shell of that worldview and offer them one that can actually help them instead."
and somehow the response to that idea is consistently about the nebulous Left "thinking it's too good to talk to people" or "writing off Rogan's audience as hopeless and abandoning them to the alt-right" or "parachuting in to lecture people for not being ideologically pure enough" or "judging them for being shit people".
It seems like this subject is deeply personal for some people in a way that is not actually very closely connected to what's being said in the thread.
Does it? I was told earlier in the thread that he doesn't push back on his guests. But I did find an example of that, entirely *against* socially concious viewpoints.
I don't know. I think the pathway to harm from going on Joe Rogan's show has a bunch of unproven steps that haven't been demonstrated. The bar metaphor was my thought on why people would perceive Biden going on vs Rogan going on. My opinion does not imply that people like Alex Jones aren't bad actors. There are weaknesses to arguments that rely on a series of untested assumptions. Interesting things can be important. The character of his guests has been reviewed repeatedly to a mirror polish, but the nature of signal boosting is far from simple or intuitive. I got my impression of the conservative approach to outreach and confidence in traditional methods from the quickness by which consideration of this method was dismissed. If battle lines are obvious, they shouldn't be - I'm sick of tribalism and want to talk to people, not blockades. I don't like what Rogan is doing. I don't not like what Rogan is doing. I can afford to withhold judgment because the key information I need to make a decision - whether Alex Jones and etc becomes popular again and whether Bernie wins the primary - will come naturally to me, and I won't even have to lift a finger.
I hope I answered all your concerns with my post.
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.
Richard Spencer should not be on CNN. CNN has done numerous bad activities, however, as shown upthread they manage to push back at their guests and hosts than Rogan does. Which is saying something, since CNN is constantly screwing up on this front. That's how low the bar is and Rogan passed it.
Rogan's guests include many who al they do is propagate right wing propaganda, everywhere, and he's ok letting them ramble on unimpeded. Or do you think Shapiro, Petersen, Owens, McInness, and Jones are harmless?
We know they aren't "the only game in town," they made quite the impression when they helped Trump get elected.
I thought about it, and the fact that CNN is only barely better than Rogan is a real indictment of a national news organization. Some people may trust Rogan, but x10000 people trust CNN x1000 more. CNN can't afford to be just 10x better than Rogan.
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.
All those networks have put more effort into not normalising Nazis than Rogan ever did.
"Rogan's an overly credulous moron who reguarly gives safe-harbor, signal boosts, and platforms to bigots, bigoted ideas, and provocateurs."
"But whatabout CNN, they had Spencer on once!"
Shapiro, Owen's, Petersen, Jones and the like aren't fixtures on CNN, but they are on Rogan. Probably because bigots are like stray cats, they're only coming around because they keep getting fed.
They have, you just dont want to accept them, and ask for the steps to be proven AGAIN every time, its ridiculous at this point.
Is Bernie bringing in people that watch Rogan's other shows? Does watching these other shows make people more accepting of those beliefs? Are the types of people he specifically brings in susceptible to those beliefs? Is a rebuttal of the core of these radical beliefs after the fact enough to defuse radicalization? Did regular viewers of Rogan get exposed to Bernie's beliefs? Were they convinced by Bernie's message? Are they substantial in number? Will that actually make a difference come election time?
There is evidence to support each of these logical claims. That evidence is crap, built on cherry picked testimonials and rough interpretations of unclean aggregate data like pageviews and subscriptions.
Notice that I didn't put in Are Rogan's guests bad and does Rogan challenge his guests, because those are points that have been answered with a preponderance of evidence. Over and over and over.
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.
You are asking questions well outside the scope of the thread, if I understand correctly, you doubt if media can influence people at all. I would say "Obviously yes?", but dont quote me, I havent really read any recent studies that I can paste here, but the answer to your question should be easy to find... OR we can trust that advertisment and propaganda are not myths, that media does have the power to shape minds and that would answer your question, that exposure to media simpathetic to an ideology will make the audience simpathetic to that ideology as well.
I understand your frustration with this ask, but I think all of that is much more easily proven by just waiting and monitoring what Bernie supporters actually do and say. We've got a pretty good baseline of their beliefs from the 2016 election. Let's see how that's changed in the coming months. Alright?
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 is moving the goalpost in a time-space way, you wondered if media could influence its audience, I think that it has been answered many times and that answer should be easy to find. To the question you asked, Bernies/JRE audience´s reaction is anecdotal, I cant describe the step by step process that goes inside someones head that makes them be susceptive to media influence, but at LEAST we can agree that media DOES influence people? Can you at least aknowledge that much without being an evading goose?
How media influences people is not exactly initiative. How many violent video games do I need to play until I decide to kill someone? If I watched only flat earth documentaries for a year would I begin to believe? Will watching liberal media really turn me gay (as some on the right have warned)?
The question follows: if you feel media influence is so important, so persuasive, so effective, why are you upset at your message being broadcast on a large platform? You should be broadcasting everywhere, anywhere!
You are missing the point made on the past 37 pages, first of all, Bernie´s audience was exposed to JRE, and not the other way around.
And saying that media has no influence on its audience is an incredibly bold claim, wich I already noted is tangent to the thread, but if you have doubts about the effects, look them up and then we can agree without a doubt.
The same arguing points being brought back over and over, it was already discussed in this exact thread why just going everywhere is not a good strategy, go re-read that. In fact, everything in your post has already been discussed.
This is, to put it kindly, nonsensical
I'm not shutting the thread right now, but honestly it feels like it's run its course to me.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Media influences people in unclear ways depending on a lot of factors, like the beliefs and other media from those involved, as you agree. For instance, Rogan's interactions with Alex Jones and other statements of his personal beliefs may affect people, just as Bernie's other statements of his personal beliefs and associations affect people that follow him. Maybe this cancels out? Maybe white supremacy wins? Maybe rejection of white supremacy wins?
I mean, this question is directly relevant to the case at hand. If Bernie's followers - or whoever - are mentally immunized against Alex Jones and company's machinations, that's not outside the scope of this thread, nor is it goalpost shifting. Your theory of harm has many moving parts. However, I do not have enough evidence to accept or reject my own theory.
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.
Radicalization is just manipulating people. It's convincing them of the reality you want them to believe, then convincing them they need to act on it. Manipulating people is less about saturation and more about rhythm. It isn't hitting them with the same idea over the head every day. It's about figuring out when to needle and prod, when to lean back, when to redirect the person or person's you're trying to manipulate, and when to let them wander to your ends on their own. Sometimes you gotta see where they are on the indoctrination and set up a situation so you can see how they run through it to see if they run through it the way you wanted them to, that kind of thing. It's why a lot of this is hard to track and precisely predict. Cause it, as a web, is being thrown wide and, inadverantly, seeing how many folks in the audience it gets to its end goal. The radicalization machine we're watching is only cognizant of itself in various small pockets. Generally by the time someone gets to a space in that radicalization machine that's cognizant of what it's doing and focusing individuals or small audiences... the jig is up you're going to have a hard time pulling em back, they're at this point basically like an addict that needs to hit rock bottom. It's ugly. The machine we're watching is vast and multifaceted, watching just one part of it won't get you the picture, and will make it seem like the machine isn't even there. That TV show I mentioned up there, blue bloods, it's a fuckin piece here, along side a bunch of other TV programming that's been running the past 20 years. The machine is vast, uncaring, and barely even knows it is a radicalization machine, it's really only the last few steps that know that they are breeding extremism of one stroke or another.
It's why we keep calling Rogan a piece in the puzzle. His role is to soften images. "That monster all these liberals are talking about can't be that bad, I heard him on Joe Rogan and him and Joe had a reasonable conversation, they can't be that bad" is a sentiment you'll often see repeated. I'll note, this is in fact exactly what he did for Sanders too, it's literally the good thing that makes it arguable this may be a good idea. all the comments from folks saying, "hey maybe sanders and all this socialism isn't actually all that bad", that's what Rogan does. It's why the argument that maybe this is actually a good idea is credible.
Unfortunately rogan will do that for literally anyone even if they are tenuously known as a shitty person. Usually once someone goes too radioactive even Rogan will maybe step back (he gets the basics of the media game at least to some extent). However if someone is still debatable in their shittiness, say some unfortunate questions start being risen about their character and past behavior, or isjusajokebro type stuff, he'll let them come on and either address that debate or leave it to the wayside to be forgotten while they spend 3 hours just shooting the shit with Joe Rogan and seeming super personable the whole time (which is again a thing I'm not entirely sure Rogan is aware other people are using him for).
It's why this was always a small concern, a minor "well Rogan is kinda shitty, just throw it on the pile of kinda dismissable shitty stuff and move on" type of situation. Because a singular incidence is likely not to significantly affect most folks indoctrination rhythm. Most people don't flip on a dime ideologically. It's why if we really wanted to dig into it we'd essentially have to start peeling back algorithms to see how overall viewing around both Sanders and Rogan changed after their meeting along side the wider trends of viewership that interact with neither. We live in a world where we could probably look at all of that and study it, but it's probably also wildly unethical to do so. I'd say it's impossible to say it didn't affect traffic and future traffic, but it is kinda impossible for us to conclusively say what those exact changes were.
The thing it definitely did, is raise Joe Rogans profile, I'm sure everyone here in this thread is now well fuckin acquainted if they weren't before (yaaaay). If Sanders gets the presidency... that's a historic hour long interview, of the president, by Joe Fuckin Rogan. That's, put it in the library of Congress and presidential records, type stuff. That's, make Joe rogan a historical figure, type stuff. That's an undeniable boost to his notariety, credibility, and assumably his reach. To soften the image of anyone willing to go on his show. Sure I can't give you the hard metrics on traffic to chart the exact changes in viewership. I can get into observations on viewership trends I've collected over the years by recording who around me watches Joe Rogan, how much and why, but that's probably getting far afield and more into the topic of the radicalization machine in general and hard metrics data is behind some wire fraud charges. I think it is still somewhat undeniable that someone who could possibly be the president will raise the profile of media agents that produce notable interactions with them. Especially should they become the president. It's literally made careers before.
While I do want our message everywhere I also want to make sure the people we're lifting up along side that message are good stewards of that message. If we leave it as is and socialism and leftism doesn't pop up in the space for some time and instead the indoctrination of the space turns to the right and they are not good stewards of the message then elevating them may have been a mistake.
I'm willing to grant that maybe the answer is to get more leftists and progressives on Rogan's show now. To start sucking up the air in the room and soften the image of leftism and progressive causes. Especially since we can't really put the genie back in the bottle here. If we grant that Sanders is raising Rogan's profile, it's a thing that's done, and maybe the only plausible response is to see if we can make headway in the space by filling up the time with less crazy right wing fringe. If Rogan's not in fact way more cognizant of his role than we give him credit for and is amenable to a bunch of democrats and socialists going on his show, I'm willing to grant that might be the best strategy moving forward now that we have to.
I'd still be disappointed we had to cajole Rogans show in the first place, and think the initial move is still bad because it makes Rogan more important than he ever should have been, but if we can control the space and make it a decent steward of the message then maybe that's the play to make now.
I think there probably are a few foundational principles or concepts that a majority of posters would agree with, and other principles where people might just be bringing different a priori positions to the table, and it would be interesting to me at least to explore where the overlaps are and where the disagreements are.
For example, I think a majority of posters would agree that it's fair to characterize a media platform as alt-right sympathetic if it provides a veneer of respectability to bigots or gives them an opportunity to expound on their ideas without significant pushback. A majority of posters would probably also agree that alt-right sympathy in media is a question of degree more than kind. I think there is probably a lot of disagreement about how one might assess how sympathetic a media platform is to the alt-right, but I'd also like to think that those are disagreements where people might be content to agree to disagree.
I'm sorry you feel that way. In short, I agree that media can affect people.
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 think that there's a distinction to be made between media that has a Broderite compunction for bothsidesism and media that gives an uncritical platform to the alt-right. The former is problematic in that it feels compelled to treat any disagreement as legitimate, but not nearly as much as the latter giving the alt-right a soapbox.
I mean CNN has done a lot of heavy lifting on the atrocities America has committed around the world, and it's actually watched by policymakers. In DC they show adds for defense contractors.
CNN are essentially co-conspirators in the deaths of hundreds of thousands? millions? of people in the last 15 years
This isn't whataboutism, it's that if we're going to wholesale reject anyone who talks to Rogan, anyone who goes on CNN should also be rejected. I reject the premise, and I think we need more leftists on both CNN and Joe Rogan, because Joe Rogan will let a leftist talk about how the police systematically target African Americans or how corporate America basically owns everyone's lives and we need more of that. I don't think Rogan is going to get less dangerous to public discourse if leftists refuse to go on his show, and I don't think leftists are going to meaningfully convert to the alt right by watching his show (I think that a lot of the consternation comes from the mistaken idea that Bernie supporters are basically alt righters)
I want a thousand Bernise Sanders' to show up on Joe Rogan's show
Maybe I'm wrong, I might be, but I haven't seen convincing evidence that leftists abandoning open platforms to the right has any positive effect
They choose to do that
You can’t just flood these media outlets, that’s not actually how it works
I wasn't aware that Joe Rogan was an "open platform." I thought you had to be invited.
Its more give and take than that. People send messages to producers, they market themselves, they try to be appealing to would be hosts, they ask to come on the show.
Its not an accident that alt right types come up everywhere, its the result of serious effort on their part.
I think that the distinction is valid but find that the "bothsidesism" of what I'll call mainstream outlets like CNN is worse because it's coupled with a predilection for sound bites which leads people to make snap judgments about things, as opposed to thoughtfully engaging with an extensive presentation. You see the risks inherent in giving a Nazi or some other flavour of bigot a soapbox, and I think those risks are real, I just think there's more silver lining that cloud. Talented critics can transform the soapboxing of bad people into the rope by which they are hanged, and if the soapbox is also open to decent people with good ideas, I remain optimistic that those good ideas can win out if they're presented well.
From where I stand, I can easily agree to disagree about which is worse because I think both are bad in their own ways but neither are so bad that they should be avoided in their entirety.
He's pretty open to prominent leftists (sanders, cornell west, etc) talking on his show afaik
If he is letting alt righters on while refusing leftists then I retract everything and nobody should ever go on it, but I recall him having guests on like that baltimore PD guy that aired all the city's dirty laundry re: racially motivated policing and police as occupying army
I believe the ben shapiros of the world actively appeal Rogan's people to get on the show, and as such, they get on the show
Edit: what I meant by open platform wasn't that literally anyone could go on there, I meant that Rogan will more or less let his guests get their viewpoint out, at length, with as much detail as they'd like to - although it is a fallacy that he doesn't contest their viewpoints ... again from earlier I don't really watch his show anymore, but I do remember a Peterson interview where he more or less made Peterson look like a moron and got him to accidentally endorse authoritarian communism. That isn't being an apologist, he shouldn't platform some of these people AT ALL and I fundamentally disagree with Joe Rogan's views of the marketplace of ideas (to say nothing of how repugnant I find some of Rogan's personal beliefs), but it is important we not spread disinformation
I crafted a whopping mammoth of a post only a few pages ago demonstrating that this isn't true in any really sense.
https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/41588592#Comment_41588592
I think you may have mentally added "on bad social justice subjects" here. Still not something I concede, but I haven't taken the time to hunt down counter examples.
We already covered a number of examples that fit within that broader parameter you and override used, though. Joe did push back on Eddie Bravo on flat earth stuff, he pushed back on Candace Owens on climate change and other things, and he pushed back on Adam Conover on both transgender issues and the idea that we should let go of our ideals of fairness in sports.
Rogan has never had Richard Spencer, an actual proud white supremacist, on his show.
Think it false equivalence or whatever all you want, but I'd like to point out that one of the primary arguments in this thread is the Rogan-as-gateway theory. Where listeners follow the guests to other guests to end up deep in the alt-right ecosystem. e.g. Rogan to Rubin to Tim Pool to Andy Warski to Spencer. Not Rogan to Spencer.
I do agree the two are quite different though. I think letting Richard "Open White Supremacist" Spencer provide "a different perspective"(!) for 10 minutes is much worse. He is a literal Nazi, not just some regular bigoted dumbass like Shapiro or Peterson, who are just regular conservatives that understand the internet and new media.
"Just some regular bigoted dumbass like Shapiro or Peterson, who are just regular conservatives"
That they've managed to shift the Overton window enough to now be considered "regular conservatives" is what I'm concerned about, and providing them with an uncritical platform is how they've accomplished that shift!
Richard Spencer is a piece of shit and shouldn't be seen in daylight. I don't think giving him any air time is good, but holy hell if he appears on CNN at least there's going to be someone who disagrees with him as well and/or a newsperson who will call him on a bald-faced lie. And they clearly have him on as the counter to whatever reasonable points are being made by the not-racist Nazi.
But ultimately, they have him on because they are laboring under a misguided delusion that all mass-media outlets are suffering from, that both sides to every issue must have valid points to make. And why is it this delusion persists? Because folks like Shapiro or Peterson, et al., who present ideas very similar to Richard Spencer's ideas - ideological wolves dressed in euphemistic wool!
Joe Rogan is this all the problems of CNN, etc., turned up to 11. He has somebody on for hours and hours and there isn't anyone to counter them. Nah, just hanging out and shooting the shit with 'em!
So what if he says to Candice Owens, "hey, what you said about climate change, I think that's wrong?" What about all the other bullshit she spouted during all that time on his show, lies about racial inequality or the real cause of the civil war or whatever the fuck she was saying during that same episode? Haha, they're all so relatable, fuck, guess I'll check out whatever they're peddling - that's how radicalization works.
You can be not liberal and still not give oxygen to people like Shapiro, Owens, and Jones. This isn't very hard.
That's the best you've got?
Rogan parroted the narrative that Seth Rich was totes murdered by Clinton, bruh and spread the smear that Antifa are a bunch of thugs from Ngo, and yet for some reason the jury is still out for you about whether or not this guy is somehow a neutral arbiter, and not an alt-right friendly useful idiot.
They absolutely did no such thing. They did with the literal literal Nazi, but Spencer just got to explain how Trump was losing the real white supremacist vote like he is some honest constituency.
Ok but he still didn't just let a nazi talk. Shapiro may be a wolf in sheep's clothing, but he's not a wolf in just regular wolf clothes. Also, Rogan guests usually have talked for hours and hours in loads of other legitimate places. My dad didn't start talking to me about JB Peterson because he heard him on an episode of Rogan! Mass-media outlets don't suffer the delusion that these guys are legitimate because they appear on Rogan.