|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On October 15 2024 04:36 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2024 04:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 15 2024 04:05 Jockmcplop wrote:On October 15 2024 03:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 15 2024 03:46 Jockmcplop wrote:On October 14 2024 20:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 14 2024 18:16 BlackJack wrote:On October 14 2024 10:55 Fleetfeet wrote:On October 14 2024 09:24 BlackJack wrote:On October 14 2024 08:46 frontgarden2222 wrote:
[quote]
Yes, Shane Gillis gets work as a white male because he's generically competent most of the time. Same with a lot of white male comics who get work all over the place in the industry. They're not great a lot of the time but their floor is generally fairly high. The fact this guy is objectively hacky and 'being not talented' is a pretty good generic reason why this guy wasn't (allegedly) hired over minority comics who are far less hacky and have more generic widespread appeal.
If his talent agency is getting sued for malpractice, they should. There's no way they were close to getting a starring role for him on Curb nor was Curb refusing to have him on solely because he was white and male. That's ignoring all the other times they brought up that excuse because they couldn't land him a job and knew he would accept this reason hook line and sinker. That's the line of questioning that should be being asked during the Rogan interview, not talking about how this guy couldn't land a job when his DC Media Dinner gig is proof that his comedy chops just wouldn't work for the majority of content. I don't know what else to tell you. The guy says he has audio recordings of his talent agency telling him it's too tough out there for white guys at the moment as the reason they can't get him any work. There's undercover videos of a Disney executive saying they discriminate against white males. There's the rules set by the Oscars that if a movie is too white it won't even be considered. It's painted all over the walls. You just refuse to see it. Your best arguments are "they also represent Shane Gillis" and "I saw some of his act and it wasn't funny therefore I know this guy wasn't discriminated against." There's nothing I can say that will convince you. You've decided to approach it with the incredulity of someone that says "There's no discrimination against black people in America because Obama was elected President." Frontgarden : "Like his interview with that failed comedian who claimed woke culture stopped him from being the next comedian superstar is a perfect example of Joe's problems. Joe Rogan gave zero pushback in that interview" Blackjack : "So let me get this right... You want Joe Rogan to fact check a guy that said his talent agency told him in a private conversation" ??? You dragged "fact check" into this. Frontgarden wanted non-zero pushback from Joe Rogan regarding the idea that the reason this comedian failed is woke culture. Nobody said prejudice against white men doesn't exist, but here you are up in arms about a thing noone said as though someone being annoyed Joe didn't push back is evidence of white men everywhere being underprivileged. The conversation is about JRE's standards in who it does and doesn't allow as guests. Personally, I don't see a problem as I don't see Joe Rogan trying to control narratives. He's not trying to paint Graham Hancock as an infallible legend (See - he organized and platformed a debate between Graham Hancock and an actual archaeologist) and didn't shit on Terrance Howard during his relatively insane bit. He generally seems like a yes-man or a smile-and-nod man. The show isn't ABOUT Joe Rogan, he's just there to let other people sell their wares, for better or worse. I'd be surprised if Joe Rogan had pushed back on that comedian. I'm not surprised that he didn't, that doesn't seem to be what he thinks his role is. Frontgarden specifically mentioned fact checking in his post so it’s not something I “dragged into” the conversation. Also frontgarden was clearly making the point that the white comedian on Joe Rogan wasn’t discriminated against. So the idea that I’m attacking someone who just wanted Joe Rogan to give a little pushback is false. Of course nobody cares about how much pushback Kamala gets from Jimmy Kimmel, Howard Stern, Stephen Colbert, the ladies on the View, or the Call Her Daddy podcast. They can fawn over her all they want. The real problem is the 1 guy that won’t fall in line with the rest of them. There is a difference between an interviewer asking softball questions and an interviewer letting their interviewee lie and spread dangerous misinformation. Trump and Harris have both had softball interviews, but that's not what we're talking about when it comes to Joe Rogan platforming insane people saying insane things. This isn't a bad thing. It is when there's minimal pushback or fact-checking, as it enables that nonsense to be spread to millions of people, who in turn may believe it if they think Joe Rogan's podcast is credible. Again not a bad thing. I acknowledge it can be harmful, but the alternative is for people outside the mainstream to have no voice. People who listen to Joe Rogan know exactly what it is they expect to hear and what they want to hear, there's no reason to deny those people the ability to hear it. No. The alternative is to fact-check. I'm not saying that liars need to be silenced; I'm saying they need to be called out when they lie. This is not a freedom of speech issue. It's a very, very, very bad thing that this isn't happening. People needlessly died during covid as a result of Trump and Rogan spreading bullshit. FEMA is currently being halted by anti-FEMA militia because of Trump. This misinformation has actual consequences when it's not corrected. Is there some reason people can't fact check what they are hearing if they choose to? I've done this plenty when I've heard something that sounds like bs. Obviously fact checking someone as you are interviewing them isn't going to lead to a particularly friendly atmosphere. Its bizarre that this would be expected of what is essentially a chat show.
Then don't profile yourself as if you "interview" people. It's just a talk show then, and Jerry Springer was more critical than Joe Rogan 
|
Joe Rogan has actively pushed anti-vaxx propaganda himself, he has done far more than just "let his guests speak without fact checking them". He actively supports the anti-vaxxer lies on his show and the reason why he doesn't fact check them is because he believes the lies and wants to push them on people. There's lots of proof of this.
|
On October 15 2024 05:01 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2024 04:36 Jockmcplop wrote:On October 15 2024 04:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 15 2024 04:05 Jockmcplop wrote:On October 15 2024 03:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 15 2024 03:46 Jockmcplop wrote:On October 14 2024 20:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 14 2024 18:16 BlackJack wrote:On October 14 2024 10:55 Fleetfeet wrote:On October 14 2024 09:24 BlackJack wrote:[quote] I don't know what else to tell you. The guy says he has audio recordings of his talent agency telling him it's too tough out there for white guys at the moment as the reason they can't get him any work. There's undercover videos of a Disney executive saying they discriminate against white males. There's the rules set by the Oscars that if a movie is too white it won't even be considered. It's painted all over the walls. You just refuse to see it. Your best arguments are "they also represent Shane Gillis" and "I saw some of his act and it wasn't funny therefore I know this guy wasn't discriminated against." There's nothing I can say that will convince you. You've decided to approach it with the incredulity of someone that says "There's no discrimination against black people in America because Obama was elected President." Frontgarden : "Like his interview with that failed comedian who claimed woke culture stopped him from being the next comedian superstar is a perfect example of Joe's problems. Joe Rogan gave zero pushback in that interview" Blackjack : "So let me get this right... You want Joe Rogan to fact check a guy that said his talent agency told him in a private conversation" ??? You dragged "fact check" into this. Frontgarden wanted non-zero pushback from Joe Rogan regarding the idea that the reason this comedian failed is woke culture. Nobody said prejudice against white men doesn't exist, but here you are up in arms about a thing noone said as though someone being annoyed Joe didn't push back is evidence of white men everywhere being underprivileged. The conversation is about JRE's standards in who it does and doesn't allow as guests. Personally, I don't see a problem as I don't see Joe Rogan trying to control narratives. He's not trying to paint Graham Hancock as an infallible legend (See - he organized and platformed a debate between Graham Hancock and an actual archaeologist) and didn't shit on Terrance Howard during his relatively insane bit. He generally seems like a yes-man or a smile-and-nod man. The show isn't ABOUT Joe Rogan, he's just there to let other people sell their wares, for better or worse. I'd be surprised if Joe Rogan had pushed back on that comedian. I'm not surprised that he didn't, that doesn't seem to be what he thinks his role is. Frontgarden specifically mentioned fact checking in his post so it’s not something I “dragged into” the conversation. Also frontgarden was clearly making the point that the white comedian on Joe Rogan wasn’t discriminated against. So the idea that I’m attacking someone who just wanted Joe Rogan to give a little pushback is false. Of course nobody cares about how much pushback Kamala gets from Jimmy Kimmel, Howard Stern, Stephen Colbert, the ladies on the View, or the Call Her Daddy podcast. They can fawn over her all they want. The real problem is the 1 guy that won’t fall in line with the rest of them. There is a difference between an interviewer asking softball questions and an interviewer letting their interviewee lie and spread dangerous misinformation. Trump and Harris have both had softball interviews, but that's not what we're talking about when it comes to Joe Rogan platforming insane people saying insane things. This isn't a bad thing. It is when there's minimal pushback or fact-checking, as it enables that nonsense to be spread to millions of people, who in turn may believe it if they think Joe Rogan's podcast is credible. Again not a bad thing. I acknowledge it can be harmful, but the alternative is for people outside the mainstream to have no voice. People who listen to Joe Rogan know exactly what it is they expect to hear and what they want to hear, there's no reason to deny those people the ability to hear it. No. The alternative is to fact-check. I'm not saying that liars need to be silenced; I'm saying they need to be called out when they lie. This is not a freedom of speech issue. It's a very, very, very bad thing that this isn't happening. People needlessly died during covid as a result of Trump and Rogan spreading bullshit. FEMA is currently being halted by anti-FEMA militia because of Trump. This misinformation has actual consequences when it's not corrected. Is there some reason people can't fact check what they are hearing if they choose to? I've done this plenty when I've heard something that sounds like bs. Obviously fact checking someone as you are interviewing them isn't going to lead to a particularly friendly atmosphere. Its bizarre that this would be expected of what is essentially a chat show. Most people do use some version of common sense. But *many* others don't. If they feel the medium (like not even necessarily what they are currently watching, just the channel it's on) is trustworthy they will happily swallow everything. For the vast majority of issues I don't care. People can think whatever they want. For an additional small part it does affect me but not really in a way I care about. As an example Netflix had an "documentary" called "Root cause" a couple of years ago with pretty wild desinformation about a very common dental treatment that happens to be a large part of my life. Plenty of people suddenly got terrified of getting a root canal. I care as a professional but ultimately someone choosing a worse treatment after getting professional advice is their problem, not mine. But for some issues they will affect me and then I have a right to care. It used to be common sense that if you enabled idiots you were at partially responsible for the consequences. If the subject is harmless it's not necessarily bad, just poor taste (looking at you trashy tabloid rags). If your neighbour rents out their house to some very shady people even when they get informed of the drug dealing then they are partially responsible for the problem. It might not be illegal to host people with deranged beliefs on your platform but if you do it and enable them at least in my world there is a personal responsibility and you get put in the same tent as the people you bring on.
I'm not saying that people shouldn't care, I just don't see how focusing the anger at Joe Rogan will help. He's not going to change or stop what he's doing. We can all sit here and say varying degrees of 'Rogan bad' but I don't think he cares.
|
On October 15 2024 05:09 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2024 04:36 Jockmcplop wrote:On October 15 2024 04:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 15 2024 04:05 Jockmcplop wrote:On October 15 2024 03:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 15 2024 03:46 Jockmcplop wrote:On October 14 2024 20:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 14 2024 18:16 BlackJack wrote:On October 14 2024 10:55 Fleetfeet wrote:On October 14 2024 09:24 BlackJack wrote:[quote] I don't know what else to tell you. The guy says he has audio recordings of his talent agency telling him it's too tough out there for white guys at the moment as the reason they can't get him any work. There's undercover videos of a Disney executive saying they discriminate against white males. There's the rules set by the Oscars that if a movie is too white it won't even be considered. It's painted all over the walls. You just refuse to see it. Your best arguments are "they also represent Shane Gillis" and "I saw some of his act and it wasn't funny therefore I know this guy wasn't discriminated against." There's nothing I can say that will convince you. You've decided to approach it with the incredulity of someone that says "There's no discrimination against black people in America because Obama was elected President." Frontgarden : "Like his interview with that failed comedian who claimed woke culture stopped him from being the next comedian superstar is a perfect example of Joe's problems. Joe Rogan gave zero pushback in that interview" Blackjack : "So let me get this right... You want Joe Rogan to fact check a guy that said his talent agency told him in a private conversation" ??? You dragged "fact check" into this. Frontgarden wanted non-zero pushback from Joe Rogan regarding the idea that the reason this comedian failed is woke culture. Nobody said prejudice against white men doesn't exist, but here you are up in arms about a thing noone said as though someone being annoyed Joe didn't push back is evidence of white men everywhere being underprivileged. The conversation is about JRE's standards in who it does and doesn't allow as guests. Personally, I don't see a problem as I don't see Joe Rogan trying to control narratives. He's not trying to paint Graham Hancock as an infallible legend (See - he organized and platformed a debate between Graham Hancock and an actual archaeologist) and didn't shit on Terrance Howard during his relatively insane bit. He generally seems like a yes-man or a smile-and-nod man. The show isn't ABOUT Joe Rogan, he's just there to let other people sell their wares, for better or worse. I'd be surprised if Joe Rogan had pushed back on that comedian. I'm not surprised that he didn't, that doesn't seem to be what he thinks his role is. Frontgarden specifically mentioned fact checking in his post so it’s not something I “dragged into” the conversation. Also frontgarden was clearly making the point that the white comedian on Joe Rogan wasn’t discriminated against. So the idea that I’m attacking someone who just wanted Joe Rogan to give a little pushback is false. Of course nobody cares about how much pushback Kamala gets from Jimmy Kimmel, Howard Stern, Stephen Colbert, the ladies on the View, or the Call Her Daddy podcast. They can fawn over her all they want. The real problem is the 1 guy that won’t fall in line with the rest of them. There is a difference between an interviewer asking softball questions and an interviewer letting their interviewee lie and spread dangerous misinformation. Trump and Harris have both had softball interviews, but that's not what we're talking about when it comes to Joe Rogan platforming insane people saying insane things. This isn't a bad thing. It is when there's minimal pushback or fact-checking, as it enables that nonsense to be spread to millions of people, who in turn may believe it if they think Joe Rogan's podcast is credible. Again not a bad thing. I acknowledge it can be harmful, but the alternative is for people outside the mainstream to have no voice. People who listen to Joe Rogan know exactly what it is they expect to hear and what they want to hear, there's no reason to deny those people the ability to hear it. No. The alternative is to fact-check. I'm not saying that liars need to be silenced; I'm saying they need to be called out when they lie. This is not a freedom of speech issue. It's a very, very, very bad thing that this isn't happening. People needlessly died during covid as a result of Trump and Rogan spreading bullshit. FEMA is currently being halted by anti-FEMA militia because of Trump. This misinformation has actual consequences when it's not corrected. Is there some reason people can't fact check what they are hearing if they choose to? I've done this plenty when I've heard something that sounds like bs. Obviously fact checking someone as you are interviewing them isn't going to lead to a particularly friendly atmosphere. Its bizarre that this would be expected of what is essentially a chat show. Then don't profile yourself as if you "interview" people. It's just a talk show then, and Jerry Springer was more critical than Joe Rogan
Its been a few years since i watched JR, but I remember him mostly being styled as a stoner bro getting high and chatting whatever shit he wants with his guests, very much like a talk show.
|
On October 15 2024 05:25 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2024 05:01 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On October 15 2024 04:36 Jockmcplop wrote:On October 15 2024 04:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 15 2024 04:05 Jockmcplop wrote:On October 15 2024 03:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 15 2024 03:46 Jockmcplop wrote:On October 14 2024 20:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 14 2024 18:16 BlackJack wrote:On October 14 2024 10:55 Fleetfeet wrote:[quote] Frontgarden : "Like his interview with that failed comedian who claimed woke culture stopped him from being the next comedian superstar is a perfect example of Joe's problems. Joe Rogan gave zero pushback in that interview" Blackjack : "So let me get this right... You want Joe Rogan to fact check a guy that said his talent agency told him in a private conversation" ??? You dragged "fact check" into this. Frontgarden wanted non-zero pushback from Joe Rogan regarding the idea that the reason this comedian failed is woke culture. Nobody said prejudice against white men doesn't exist, but here you are up in arms about a thing noone said as though someone being annoyed Joe didn't push back is evidence of white men everywhere being underprivileged. The conversation is about JRE's standards in who it does and doesn't allow as guests. Personally, I don't see a problem as I don't see Joe Rogan trying to control narratives. He's not trying to paint Graham Hancock as an infallible legend (See - he organized and platformed a debate between Graham Hancock and an actual archaeologist) and didn't shit on Terrance Howard during his relatively insane bit. He generally seems like a yes-man or a smile-and-nod man. The show isn't ABOUT Joe Rogan, he's just there to let other people sell their wares, for better or worse. I'd be surprised if Joe Rogan had pushed back on that comedian. I'm not surprised that he didn't, that doesn't seem to be what he thinks his role is. Frontgarden specifically mentioned fact checking in his post so it’s not something I “dragged into” the conversation. Also frontgarden was clearly making the point that the white comedian on Joe Rogan wasn’t discriminated against. So the idea that I’m attacking someone who just wanted Joe Rogan to give a little pushback is false. Of course nobody cares about how much pushback Kamala gets from Jimmy Kimmel, Howard Stern, Stephen Colbert, the ladies on the View, or the Call Her Daddy podcast. They can fawn over her all they want. The real problem is the 1 guy that won’t fall in line with the rest of them. There is a difference between an interviewer asking softball questions and an interviewer letting their interviewee lie and spread dangerous misinformation. Trump and Harris have both had softball interviews, but that's not what we're talking about when it comes to Joe Rogan platforming insane people saying insane things. This isn't a bad thing. It is when there's minimal pushback or fact-checking, as it enables that nonsense to be spread to millions of people, who in turn may believe it if they think Joe Rogan's podcast is credible. Again not a bad thing. I acknowledge it can be harmful, but the alternative is for people outside the mainstream to have no voice. People who listen to Joe Rogan know exactly what it is they expect to hear and what they want to hear, there's no reason to deny those people the ability to hear it. No. The alternative is to fact-check. I'm not saying that liars need to be silenced; I'm saying they need to be called out when they lie. This is not a freedom of speech issue. It's a very, very, very bad thing that this isn't happening. People needlessly died during covid as a result of Trump and Rogan spreading bullshit. FEMA is currently being halted by anti-FEMA militia because of Trump. This misinformation has actual consequences when it's not corrected. Is there some reason people can't fact check what they are hearing if they choose to? I've done this plenty when I've heard something that sounds like bs. Obviously fact checking someone as you are interviewing them isn't going to lead to a particularly friendly atmosphere. Its bizarre that this would be expected of what is essentially a chat show. Most people do use some version of common sense. But *many* others don't. If they feel the medium (like not even necessarily what they are currently watching, just the channel it's on) is trustworthy they will happily swallow everything. For the vast majority of issues I don't care. People can think whatever they want. For an additional small part it does affect me but not really in a way I care about. As an example Netflix had an "documentary" called "Root cause" a couple of years ago with pretty wild desinformation about a very common dental treatment that happens to be a large part of my life. Plenty of people suddenly got terrified of getting a root canal. I care as a professional but ultimately someone choosing a worse treatment after getting professional advice is their problem, not mine. But for some issues they will affect me and then I have a right to care. It used to be common sense that if you enabled idiots you were at partially responsible for the consequences. If the subject is harmless it's not necessarily bad, just poor taste (looking at you trashy tabloid rags). If your neighbour rents out their house to some very shady people even when they get informed of the drug dealing then they are partially responsible for the problem. It might not be illegal to host people with deranged beliefs on your platform but if you do it and enable them at least in my world there is a personal responsibility and you get put in the same tent as the people you bring on. I'm not saying that people shouldn't care, I just don't see how focusing the anger at Joe Rogan will help. He's not going to change or stop what he's doing. We can all sit here and say varying degrees of 'Rogan bad' but I don't think he cares.
For sure, and that's OK. But logically there shouldn't be pushback about this. His place is in the same category as the scandal rags or the slightly more posh equivalent making up shit about euro royals. Just put him there and he's automatically fact checked. And people can still enjoy listening to his show. It's how it's traditionally have worked. Many people still watch Jerry Springer on youtube and the vast majority know it's all faked. But it's still fun and that's OK. The problem comes we you start pretend it's something else.
And if he doesn't want to be in that category he has to start taking some responsibility.
|
On October 15 2024 05:25 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2024 05:01 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On October 15 2024 04:36 Jockmcplop wrote:On October 15 2024 04:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 15 2024 04:05 Jockmcplop wrote:On October 15 2024 03:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 15 2024 03:46 Jockmcplop wrote:On October 14 2024 20:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 14 2024 18:16 BlackJack wrote:On October 14 2024 10:55 Fleetfeet wrote:[quote] Frontgarden : "Like his interview with that failed comedian who claimed woke culture stopped him from being the next comedian superstar is a perfect example of Joe's problems. Joe Rogan gave zero pushback in that interview" Blackjack : "So let me get this right... You want Joe Rogan to fact check a guy that said his talent agency told him in a private conversation" ??? You dragged "fact check" into this. Frontgarden wanted non-zero pushback from Joe Rogan regarding the idea that the reason this comedian failed is woke culture. Nobody said prejudice against white men doesn't exist, but here you are up in arms about a thing noone said as though someone being annoyed Joe didn't push back is evidence of white men everywhere being underprivileged. The conversation is about JRE's standards in who it does and doesn't allow as guests. Personally, I don't see a problem as I don't see Joe Rogan trying to control narratives. He's not trying to paint Graham Hancock as an infallible legend (See - he organized and platformed a debate between Graham Hancock and an actual archaeologist) and didn't shit on Terrance Howard during his relatively insane bit. He generally seems like a yes-man or a smile-and-nod man. The show isn't ABOUT Joe Rogan, he's just there to let other people sell their wares, for better or worse. I'd be surprised if Joe Rogan had pushed back on that comedian. I'm not surprised that he didn't, that doesn't seem to be what he thinks his role is. Frontgarden specifically mentioned fact checking in his post so it’s not something I “dragged into” the conversation. Also frontgarden was clearly making the point that the white comedian on Joe Rogan wasn’t discriminated against. So the idea that I’m attacking someone who just wanted Joe Rogan to give a little pushback is false. Of course nobody cares about how much pushback Kamala gets from Jimmy Kimmel, Howard Stern, Stephen Colbert, the ladies on the View, or the Call Her Daddy podcast. They can fawn over her all they want. The real problem is the 1 guy that won’t fall in line with the rest of them. There is a difference between an interviewer asking softball questions and an interviewer letting their interviewee lie and spread dangerous misinformation. Trump and Harris have both had softball interviews, but that's not what we're talking about when it comes to Joe Rogan platforming insane people saying insane things. This isn't a bad thing. It is when there's minimal pushback or fact-checking, as it enables that nonsense to be spread to millions of people, who in turn may believe it if they think Joe Rogan's podcast is credible. Again not a bad thing. I acknowledge it can be harmful, but the alternative is for people outside the mainstream to have no voice. People who listen to Joe Rogan know exactly what it is they expect to hear and what they want to hear, there's no reason to deny those people the ability to hear it. No. The alternative is to fact-check. I'm not saying that liars need to be silenced; I'm saying they need to be called out when they lie. This is not a freedom of speech issue. It's a very, very, very bad thing that this isn't happening. People needlessly died during covid as a result of Trump and Rogan spreading bullshit. FEMA is currently being halted by anti-FEMA militia because of Trump. This misinformation has actual consequences when it's not corrected. Is there some reason people can't fact check what they are hearing if they choose to? I've done this plenty when I've heard something that sounds like bs. Obviously fact checking someone as you are interviewing them isn't going to lead to a particularly friendly atmosphere. Its bizarre that this would be expected of what is essentially a chat show. Most people do use some version of common sense. But *many* others don't. If they feel the medium (like not even necessarily what they are currently watching, just the channel it's on) is trustworthy they will happily swallow everything. For the vast majority of issues I don't care. People can think whatever they want. For an additional small part it does affect me but not really in a way I care about. As an example Netflix had an "documentary" called "Root cause" a couple of years ago with pretty wild desinformation about a very common dental treatment that happens to be a large part of my life. Plenty of people suddenly got terrified of getting a root canal. I care as a professional but ultimately someone choosing a worse treatment after getting professional advice is their problem, not mine. But for some issues they will affect me and then I have a right to care. It used to be common sense that if you enabled idiots you were at partially responsible for the consequences. If the subject is harmless it's not necessarily bad, just poor taste (looking at you trashy tabloid rags). If your neighbour rents out their house to some very shady people even when they get informed of the drug dealing then they are partially responsible for the problem. It might not be illegal to host people with deranged beliefs on your platform but if you do it and enable them at least in my world there is a personal responsibility and you get put in the same tent as the people you bring on. I'm not saying that people shouldn't care, I just don't see how focusing the anger at Joe Rogan will help. He's not going to change or stop what he's doing. We can all sit here and say varying degrees of 'Rogan bad' but I don't think he cares.
That's not your original position. Your original position was that what Joe Rogan does is good and not bad, which is very different than saying we shouldn't bother talking about his bad approach since he won't change his mind. If we decide to only talk about things that the ~10-20 of us are able to meaningfully change, then we can't talk about anything at all.
|
On October 15 2024 05:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2024 05:25 Jockmcplop wrote:On October 15 2024 05:01 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On October 15 2024 04:36 Jockmcplop wrote:On October 15 2024 04:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 15 2024 04:05 Jockmcplop wrote:On October 15 2024 03:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 15 2024 03:46 Jockmcplop wrote:On October 14 2024 20:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 14 2024 18:16 BlackJack wrote:
[quote]
Frontgarden specifically mentioned fact checking in his post so it’s not something I “dragged into” the conversation.
Also frontgarden was clearly making the point that the white comedian on Joe Rogan wasn’t discriminated against. So the idea that I’m attacking someone who just wanted Joe Rogan to give a little pushback is false.
Of course nobody cares about how much pushback Kamala gets from Jimmy Kimmel, Howard Stern, Stephen Colbert, the ladies on the View, or the Call Her Daddy podcast. They can fawn over her all they want. The real problem is the 1 guy that won’t fall in line with the rest of them.
There is a difference between an interviewer asking softball questions and an interviewer letting their interviewee lie and spread dangerous misinformation. Trump and Harris have both had softball interviews, but that's not what we're talking about when it comes to Joe Rogan platforming insane people saying insane things. This isn't a bad thing. It is when there's minimal pushback or fact-checking, as it enables that nonsense to be spread to millions of people, who in turn may believe it if they think Joe Rogan's podcast is credible. Again not a bad thing. I acknowledge it can be harmful, but the alternative is for people outside the mainstream to have no voice. People who listen to Joe Rogan know exactly what it is they expect to hear and what they want to hear, there's no reason to deny those people the ability to hear it. No. The alternative is to fact-check. I'm not saying that liars need to be silenced; I'm saying they need to be called out when they lie. This is not a freedom of speech issue. It's a very, very, very bad thing that this isn't happening. People needlessly died during covid as a result of Trump and Rogan spreading bullshit. FEMA is currently being halted by anti-FEMA militia because of Trump. This misinformation has actual consequences when it's not corrected. Is there some reason people can't fact check what they are hearing if they choose to? I've done this plenty when I've heard something that sounds like bs. Obviously fact checking someone as you are interviewing them isn't going to lead to a particularly friendly atmosphere. Its bizarre that this would be expected of what is essentially a chat show. Most people do use some version of common sense. But *many* others don't. If they feel the medium (like not even necessarily what they are currently watching, just the channel it's on) is trustworthy they will happily swallow everything. For the vast majority of issues I don't care. People can think whatever they want. For an additional small part it does affect me but not really in a way I care about. As an example Netflix had an "documentary" called "Root cause" a couple of years ago with pretty wild desinformation about a very common dental treatment that happens to be a large part of my life. Plenty of people suddenly got terrified of getting a root canal. I care as a professional but ultimately someone choosing a worse treatment after getting professional advice is their problem, not mine. But for some issues they will affect me and then I have a right to care. It used to be common sense that if you enabled idiots you were at partially responsible for the consequences. If the subject is harmless it's not necessarily bad, just poor taste (looking at you trashy tabloid rags). If your neighbour rents out their house to some very shady people even when they get informed of the drug dealing then they are partially responsible for the problem. It might not be illegal to host people with deranged beliefs on your platform but if you do it and enable them at least in my world there is a personal responsibility and you get put in the same tent as the people you bring on. I'm not saying that people shouldn't care, I just don't see how focusing the anger at Joe Rogan will help. He's not going to change or stop what he's doing. We can all sit here and say varying degrees of 'Rogan bad' but I don't think he cares. That's not your original position. Your original position was that what Joe Rogan does is good and not bad, which is very different than saying we shouldn't bother talking about his bad approach since he won't change his mind. If we decide to only talk about things that the ~10-20 of us are able to meaningfully change, then we can't talk about anything at all.
My position on conspiracy theories has always been the same.
They deserve to be heard just like everything else, mostly because there's usually a bit of truth in there with all the lies and quite often the truths are surprising. When I was young I used to watch David Icke quite alot. I was fully aware that he talked alot of bullshit, but he also did unearth some really interesting stuff that you just wouldn't find outside of the batshit crazy conspiracy theory landscape.
I've always supported this, even though I despise Joe Rogan and his bro culture.
I think ideas deserve to be heard in whatever context they are presented, and should be subject to whatever level of scrutiny people want to use. If you don't like an idea you are free to disprove it.
So I still think Rogan is bad, in that his bro culture is poison, but not because he broadcasts conspiracy theories. Plenty of other people do that. The negative effects of this are exaggerated because of his reach, but that is as much the responsibility of his audience as anyone else.
|
I'm reading David Icke is banned from the Netherlands because of how dangerous he is. So he's basically what Joe Rogan would be if Joe Rogan was just one step deeper in the anti-vaxx craze.
|
On October 15 2024 05:52 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2024 05:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 15 2024 05:25 Jockmcplop wrote:On October 15 2024 05:01 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On October 15 2024 04:36 Jockmcplop wrote:On October 15 2024 04:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 15 2024 04:05 Jockmcplop wrote:On October 15 2024 03:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 15 2024 03:46 Jockmcplop wrote:On October 14 2024 20:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
There is a difference between an interviewer asking softball questions and an interviewer letting their interviewee lie and spread dangerous misinformation. Trump and Harris have both had softball interviews, but that's not what we're talking about when it comes to Joe Rogan platforming insane people saying insane things. This isn't a bad thing. It is when there's minimal pushback or fact-checking, as it enables that nonsense to be spread to millions of people, who in turn may believe it if they think Joe Rogan's podcast is credible. Again not a bad thing. I acknowledge it can be harmful, but the alternative is for people outside the mainstream to have no voice. People who listen to Joe Rogan know exactly what it is they expect to hear and what they want to hear, there's no reason to deny those people the ability to hear it. No. The alternative is to fact-check. I'm not saying that liars need to be silenced; I'm saying they need to be called out when they lie. This is not a freedom of speech issue. It's a very, very, very bad thing that this isn't happening. People needlessly died during covid as a result of Trump and Rogan spreading bullshit. FEMA is currently being halted by anti-FEMA militia because of Trump. This misinformation has actual consequences when it's not corrected. Is there some reason people can't fact check what they are hearing if they choose to? I've done this plenty when I've heard something that sounds like bs. Obviously fact checking someone as you are interviewing them isn't going to lead to a particularly friendly atmosphere. Its bizarre that this would be expected of what is essentially a chat show. Most people do use some version of common sense. But *many* others don't. If they feel the medium (like not even necessarily what they are currently watching, just the channel it's on) is trustworthy they will happily swallow everything. For the vast majority of issues I don't care. People can think whatever they want. For an additional small part it does affect me but not really in a way I care about. As an example Netflix had an "documentary" called "Root cause" a couple of years ago with pretty wild desinformation about a very common dental treatment that happens to be a large part of my life. Plenty of people suddenly got terrified of getting a root canal. I care as a professional but ultimately someone choosing a worse treatment after getting professional advice is their problem, not mine. But for some issues they will affect me and then I have a right to care. It used to be common sense that if you enabled idiots you were at partially responsible for the consequences. If the subject is harmless it's not necessarily bad, just poor taste (looking at you trashy tabloid rags). If your neighbour rents out their house to some very shady people even when they get informed of the drug dealing then they are partially responsible for the problem. It might not be illegal to host people with deranged beliefs on your platform but if you do it and enable them at least in my world there is a personal responsibility and you get put in the same tent as the people you bring on. I'm not saying that people shouldn't care, I just don't see how focusing the anger at Joe Rogan will help. He's not going to change or stop what he's doing. We can all sit here and say varying degrees of 'Rogan bad' but I don't think he cares. That's not your original position. Your original position was that what Joe Rogan does is good and not bad, which is very different than saying we shouldn't bother talking about his bad approach since he won't change his mind. If we decide to only talk about things that the ~10-20 of us are able to meaningfully change, then we can't talk about anything at all. My position on conspiracy theories has always been the same. They deserve to be heard just like everything else, mostly because there's usually a bit of truth in there with all the lies and quite often the truths are surprising. When I was young I used to watch David Icke quite alot. I was fully aware that he talked alot of bullshit, but he also did unearth some really interesting stuff that you just wouldn't find outside of the batshit crazy conspiracy theory landscape. I've always supported this, even though I despise Joe Rogan and his bro culture. I think ideas deserve to be heard in whatever context they are presented, and should be subject to whatever level of scrutiny people want to use. If you don't like an idea you are free to disprove it. So I still think Rogan is bad, in that his bro culture is poison, but not because he broadcasts conspiracy theories. Plenty of other people do that. The negative effects of this are exaggerated because of his reach, but that is as much the responsibility of his audience as anyone else.
I don't agree with the idea that conspiracy theories have value due to potential bits of truth that may exist within them, since the true bits could just be discussed without them being wrapped in bullshit. And especially in this political climate - where we had a January 6th riot from lies about widespread voter fraud, and most Republican leaders still being unwilling to admit that Trump lost a fair 2020 election, for example - I am way more worried about falsehoods going viral long before any corrections can gain even minimal traction. The "alternative facts" damage has to be taken more seriously, in my opinion, because unfortunately a large number of people aren't interested in voluntarily fact-checking things. It's also depressing, as an educator, to see just how gullible and dumb some American adults can be.
|
On October 15 2024 05:52 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2024 05:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 15 2024 05:25 Jockmcplop wrote:On October 15 2024 05:01 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On October 15 2024 04:36 Jockmcplop wrote:On October 15 2024 04:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 15 2024 04:05 Jockmcplop wrote:On October 15 2024 03:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 15 2024 03:46 Jockmcplop wrote:On October 14 2024 20:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
There is a difference between an interviewer asking softball questions and an interviewer letting their interviewee lie and spread dangerous misinformation. Trump and Harris have both had softball interviews, but that's not what we're talking about when it comes to Joe Rogan platforming insane people saying insane things. This isn't a bad thing. It is when there's minimal pushback or fact-checking, as it enables that nonsense to be spread to millions of people, who in turn may believe it if they think Joe Rogan's podcast is credible. Again not a bad thing. I acknowledge it can be harmful, but the alternative is for people outside the mainstream to have no voice. People who listen to Joe Rogan know exactly what it is they expect to hear and what they want to hear, there's no reason to deny those people the ability to hear it. No. The alternative is to fact-check. I'm not saying that liars need to be silenced; I'm saying they need to be called out when they lie. This is not a freedom of speech issue. It's a very, very, very bad thing that this isn't happening. People needlessly died during covid as a result of Trump and Rogan spreading bullshit. FEMA is currently being halted by anti-FEMA militia because of Trump. This misinformation has actual consequences when it's not corrected. Is there some reason people can't fact check what they are hearing if they choose to? I've done this plenty when I've heard something that sounds like bs. Obviously fact checking someone as you are interviewing them isn't going to lead to a particularly friendly atmosphere. Its bizarre that this would be expected of what is essentially a chat show. Most people do use some version of common sense. But *many* others don't. If they feel the medium (like not even necessarily what they are currently watching, just the channel it's on) is trustworthy they will happily swallow everything. For the vast majority of issues I don't care. People can think whatever they want. For an additional small part it does affect me but not really in a way I care about. As an example Netflix had an "documentary" called "Root cause" a couple of years ago with pretty wild desinformation about a very common dental treatment that happens to be a large part of my life. Plenty of people suddenly got terrified of getting a root canal. I care as a professional but ultimately someone choosing a worse treatment after getting professional advice is their problem, not mine. But for some issues they will affect me and then I have a right to care. It used to be common sense that if you enabled idiots you were at partially responsible for the consequences. If the subject is harmless it's not necessarily bad, just poor taste (looking at you trashy tabloid rags). If your neighbour rents out their house to some very shady people even when they get informed of the drug dealing then they are partially responsible for the problem. It might not be illegal to host people with deranged beliefs on your platform but if you do it and enable them at least in my world there is a personal responsibility and you get put in the same tent as the people you bring on. I'm not saying that people shouldn't care, I just don't see how focusing the anger at Joe Rogan will help. He's not going to change or stop what he's doing. We can all sit here and say varying degrees of 'Rogan bad' but I don't think he cares. That's not your original position. Your original position was that what Joe Rogan does is good and not bad, which is very different than saying we shouldn't bother talking about his bad approach since he won't change his mind. If we decide to only talk about things that the ~10-20 of us are able to meaningfully change, then we can't talk about anything at all. My position on conspiracy theories has always been the same. They deserve to be heard just like everything else, mostly because there's usually a bit of truth in there with all the lies and quite often the truths are surprising. When I was young I used to watch David Icke quite alot. I was fully aware that he talked alot of bullshit, but he also did unearth some really interesting stuff that you just wouldn't find outside of the batshit crazy conspiracy theory landscape. I've always supported this, even though I despise Joe Rogan and his bro culture. I think ideas deserve to be heard in whatever context they are presented, and should be subject to whatever level of scrutiny people want to use. If you don't like an idea you are free to disprove it. So I still think Rogan is bad, in that his bro culture is poison, but not because he broadcasts conspiracy theories. Plenty of other people do that. The negative effects of this are exaggerated because of his reach, but that is as much the responsibility of his audience as anyone else.
So you think people should be allowed to just openly discuss any ideas without trying to silence them for their wrongthink?!
|
I'm curious how much people here watch / have watched JRE. I haven't seen much - I've probably watched 2-4 full episodes that involve subjects I'm inteterested in. The impression I'm left with is that it's supposed to be basement pothead conversation with -whoever-, be they someone who wrote a book, or is an astrophysicist, or whatever. I've never met anyone, in person or online, who has a "Bro u gotta watch JRE with X person itll blow ur mind" attitude. The times it does get mentioned it only goes as high as "interesting conversation" and I think that isn't actively dangerous.
I don't think it's dangerous to platform flat earthers or antivaxxers or other 'wrongthink' people in cases where their beliefs aren't directly discriminatory or racist. Ideas should exist, and if a flat earther being platformed results in a bunch of people being afraid to sail west for too long, then the education systems we have in place failed dramatically. More likely people DO get interesting parts of the dialogue and further their understanding one way or the other.
|
The real reason why Joe Rogan shouldn't be banned isn't because he's not dangerous or doesn't cause harm. He does cause harm with his frequent spewing of anti-scientific nonsense. But that's not enough to censor or otherwise silence him. For that he'd have to go beyond just having a talk show.
The reason why he has to be allowed to get away with this is because the alternative is worse. A certain level of danger is always expected. Joe Rogan is part of that danger. Free speech must be protected even when it's dangerous and in some cases harmful. Not because that's good, but because the alternative is worse.
|
On October 15 2024 06:46 Fleetfeet wrote:
I'm curious how much people here watch / have watched JRE. I haven't seen much - I've probably watched 2-4 full episodes that involve subjects I'm inteterested in. The impression I'm left with is that it's supposed to be basement pothead conversation with -whoever-, be they someone who wrote a book, or is an astrophysicist, or whatever. I've never met anyone, in person or online, who has a "Bro u gotta watch JRE with X person itll blow ur mind" attitude. The times it does get mentioned it only goes as high as "interesting conversation" and I think that isn't actively dangerous.
I don't think it's dangerous to platform flat earthers or antivaxxers or other 'wrongthink' people in cases where their beliefs aren't directly discriminatory or racist. Ideas should exist, and if a flat earther being platformed results in a bunch of people being afraid to sail west for too long, then the education systems we have in place failed dramatically. More likely people DO get interesting parts of the dialogue and further their understanding one way or the other.
I have not listened a ton, mostly just his interviews with fighters, MMA and boxers. One with Lennox Lewis and Russel Peters comes to mind that was particularly interesting and really fun. I have never braved the Alex Jones ones or anything because I don't even want to hear the garbage that guy spews. But the sports ones are great, Rogan knows that world really well and you hear some great stories.
|
Remember when we kicked off a global pandemic with Fauci telling us there's no reason to mask up and then later telling us he lied about that because we needed to save masks for healthcare workers? The government lying to our faces has done 10x the damage of Joe Rogan but of course people only want to talk about Joe Rogan being the problem.
Also want to point out that I vividly remember the gullible people regurgitating Fauci's lie about masks early in the pandemic. Ironically they would have been praised while the rest of us would have been shamed for spreading misinformation for pointing out the stupidity of saying "There's no reason to mask and also we need to save them for the healthcare workers."
|
Who was the president during that time? It would be crazy if we didn't have a comment about that from the guy who was in charge and was breifed about the policy of his administration. The government actually doing its job and doing whats best for the people shakes peoples confidence in the government to act in the publics best interest. If Fauci did something wrong that guy in charge of the administration whos so proud of firing people should have probably fired that person. The concept of Santa going over BJ's head isn't a surprise but is concerning.
Yes people should be praised for lying to the public during an emergency in order to prioritise peoples lives. You don't tell people there is a bomb in a building before evacuating said building. You are shamed for spreading misinformation not because its bad in it of itself you are shamed for doing it without a good reason. Joe Rogan is a problem because he makes money off of the misinformation he platforms and infects the public with.
|
On October 15 2024 08:26 BlackJack wrote:
Remember when we kicked off a global pandemic with Fauci telling us there's no reason to mask up and then later telling us he lied about that because we needed to save masks for healthcare workers? The government lying to our faces has done 10x the damage of Joe Rogan but of course people only want to talk about Joe Rogan being the problem.
Also want to point out that I vividly remember the gullible people regurgitating Fauci's lie about masks early in the pandemic. Ironically they would have been praised while the rest of us would have been shamed for spreading misinformation for pointing out the stupidity of saying "There's no reason to mask and also we need to save them for the healthcare workers."
If we're trying to one-up Person X misinforming the public by saying that Person Y misinformed the public even worse, then Donald Trump laps everyone else, multiple times, forever and ever.
Also, no one is excusing everyone else from lying or enabling liars, just because Joe Rogan is one such offender. "What about Fauci" doesn't absolve Rogan.
|
On October 15 2024 06:01 Magic Powers wrote:
I'm reading David Icke is banned from the Netherlands because of how dangerous he is. So he's basically what Joe Rogan would be if Joe Rogan was just one step deeper in the anti-vaxx craze.
Yeah a Jewish organisation petitioned to the government here in Australia a few years ago just as he was about to tour and had him banned on the grounds of 'anti-semitism', which is in his earlier books apparently.Have not read them myself.
Of course the material is all still available online so banning has made no impact.I'd say more people hold those views than did five years ago, for sure.
|
On October 15 2024 07:11 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2024 06:46 Fleetfeet wrote:
I'm curious how much people here watch / have watched JRE. I haven't seen much - I've probably watched 2-4 full episodes that involve subjects I'm inteterested in. The impression I'm left with is that it's supposed to be basement pothead conversation with -whoever-, be they someone who wrote a book, or is an astrophysicist, or whatever. I've never met anyone, in person or online, who has a "Bro u gotta watch JRE with X person itll blow ur mind" attitude. The times it does get mentioned it only goes as high as "interesting conversation" and I think that isn't actively dangerous.
I don't think it's dangerous to platform flat earthers or antivaxxers or other 'wrongthink' people in cases where their beliefs aren't directly discriminatory or racist. Ideas should exist, and if a flat earther being platformed results in a bunch of people being afraid to sail west for too long, then the education systems we have in place failed dramatically. More likely people DO get interesting parts of the dialogue and further their understanding one way or the other. I have not listened a ton, mostly just his interviews with fighters, MMA and boxers. One with Lennox Lewis and Russel Peters comes to mind that was particularly interesting and really fun. I have never braved the Alex Jones ones or anything because I don't even want to hear the garbage that guy spews. But the sports ones are great, Rogan knows that world really well and you hear some great stories.
I do feel like this is basically the response I hear most. I have a hard time stomaching the idea that Joe Rogan is a danger to society in part because the people heavily critical of him don't consume his media directly. I hear WAY more criticism of JRE than I do praise, and I've never encountered a JRE cultist who mindlessly believes everything Joe nods pensively at.
|
Naming a scientist who arguably made a small but significant number of mistakes such as Fauci and claiming he poses as much of a threat as Joe Rogan is comical. Fauci has made mistakes regarding the pandemic, while Rogan has actively and repeatedly pushed very dangerous lies and misinformation for several years. This is just not a fitting comparison.
|
On October 15 2024 11:20 Magic Powers wrote:
Naming a scientist who arguably made a small but significant number of mistakes such as Fauci and claiming he poses as much of a threat as Joe Rogan is comical. Fauci has made mistakes regarding the pandemic, while Rogan has actively and repeatedly pushed very dangerous lies and misinformation for several years. This is just not a fitting comparison.
I truly do not understand this take.
Who has more potential to cause harm : An authority in a field providing medical advice to an entire nation from a national platform, or a former comic with a podcast?
If what BJ claims is accurate, it's OBVIOUSLY more harmful in a general sense than any "whoa, bro" Joe Rogan could do, both to the health of people encouraged not to mask, and the general sense of faith people have in science. To be clear, I understand in that situation where the fear of the medical systems collapsing justifies prioritizing masks for medical staff, but that doesn't make BJ wrong for pointing to it as an example.
At the end of the day, I'm less interested in who we should blame for sharing wrongthink and more interested in why people embrace wrongthink and what, if anything, should be done about it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
