2 or 3 dissenting opinions that just get dog-piled on is not what I was talking about.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Can We Just Admit that Joe Rogan is Alt-Right Already?
- Thread starter BWoog
- Start date
- Status
2 or 3 dissenting opinions that just get dog-piled on is not what I was talking about.
That has been happening for a long time ago, far more than two years.
I was referring to actual political arguments. Anytime socialism is discussed, anytime 50 state strategies are discussed, etc, there is an actual high amount of arguing among posters here.
I was not talking about overt racism or bigotry. Racism is still argued over in the aforementioned 50 state strategy, trying to win over moderates, etc though.
Is this another Trump/Fox News-inspired "Obama separated children too" argument?
The Gist with Mike Peska is pretty good, and it's only 20 or 30 minutes every day or two. It's a Slate Magazine podcast.
I'd be open to someone suggesting a left-wing long-form podcast too.
I agree with this. I'm in a few Resetera discords and that same critique comes up often. Essentially, a group of people have decided to nope out of OT politics threads because of the way they inevitably go.
I say this as a progressive who loathes the likes of Shapiro and Peterson and has genuine anxiety at times thinking about how fucked Trump has made this country. However, I still have discussions with people who disagree with me in those discords. I see a lot of brow-beating people into submission in these threads. Like, if someone has a dissenting opinion and then they are called Nazi sympathizers within the first 10 posts, that 'discussion' isn't really going anywhere. That dissenting opinion now has to defend themselves against ridiculous claims against themselves.
How about you explain to me why you think its not racially motivated and then I'll explain why you are wrong.
sadly, there aren't that many that have the same kind of notoriety as many on 'centrist'/right wing youtube. I find contrapoint's videos to be compelling and thoughtful though.
Last edited:
You lot are truly hilarious.
Also please do provide your definition of alt-right I could do with a laugh.
I'm left to center and always have and will be but the far lefts mislabelling of people is so hilarious.
Are people telling me Rogan is a racist? Is a white supremacist? Give over.
Finally, I have one major reason why he has more alt-right and controversial people on his shows. Those videos get views. Simple as.
Also please do provide your definition of alt-right I could do with a laugh.
I'm left to center and always have and will be but the far lefts mislabelling of people is so hilarious.
Are people telling me Rogan is a racist? Is a white supremacist? Give over.
Finally, I have one major reason why he has more alt-right and controversial people on his shows. Those videos get views. Simple as.
I see what you're saying. I guess I recognize Rogan as a problematic public personality while also getting a lot from his show when he has on actual scientists, athletes, and nutritionists, or when he has on guests like Kevin Smith. (that dog story :() I don't think he's outright hateful or racist. I think he's a flawed-but-curious human being with a big platform...which I can see as dangerous in the context that you pointed out, if there are a lot of people parroting some of his guests' shaky or shady opinions.
If we agree that he's somehow "dangerous," what's the solution? Even if more level-headed listeners stop listening to him, that won't stop his core.
Please see my previous posts. Its pretty well spelled out.
You believe that? He is making a killing, getting millions of views and apart from a few paces like this is still considered just a good person who made a living just having discussions with lots of people.
If Joe decided he wouldn't have a specific group of people on (within reason) then that that's what wouldn't work out well for him.
This forum doesn't realize that it is in the minority on this one.
While I haven't accused Joe of being a nazi himself, I'll say that "he did that shitty thing for money" is not a moral justification for anything. I guarantee you there are genuine alt right figures motivated by views and money. It doesn't stop them from spouting racist views, entertaining racists, and therefore being racists themselves.
That is ultimately what the most common complaint here is. If you're inviting known racists on your show and not consistently, directly confronting them* it will eventually damage your reputation.
By this I mean bringing up their hateful views and making them defend them, even if the guest does not bring them up. The sole purpose of giving anyone like this a platform should be to expose them
I don't think he's outright hateful and racist either, but he unwittingly does participate in racism and naively spreads hate believing he's spreading knowledge. Unfortunately, too many of his guests are alt-right or are conservative shills which he welcomes with both arms and treats they're rhetoric as harmless at best an inspiring at worst. He'll throw a temper tantrum and get into an argument to defend marijuana against Steven Crowder but he'll agree with Milo about SJWs. That's not someone who's objective.
Regarding a solution, I don't know. I'm certainly not going to pretend I have the answers, but my gut is telling me Joe's more of a symptom of anti-intellectualism in this country.
And what political beliefs do you think we all share here?
And what exactly do ANY of those people have to say that is worth hearing? I'm being serious. You say that you listen so what have you heard from them that made you change your opinion on a topic?
Never said it was a moral justification. Also, I have never once seen Joe let someone come on his podcast and broadcast racism. If he did that he would be finished in a minutes. He hasn't and that's why he is not.
Even the shows with Peterson. For the most part, they are just having a conversation about normal things yet people fly off the rails.
Overreactions is definitely a problem in current society as when someone does something truly wrong you will have people saying its just another overreaction.
I added in my * while you were replying. If you invite those people on I believe you should confront their hateful views even if they don't want to. Normalising them as regular people gives them the chance to expand their fanbase.
My 2 cents, anyways. You guys can obviously listen to whatever you'd like.
Thats not the same thing. Thats a religious belief and something that doesn't necessarily come up in conversation. Meanwhile things like racist beliefs, shitty attitudes, and other various negative personality traits are abundantly clear most times. For example if you surround yourself with racists then you are either a racist, support racism, or you at the very least don't view racism as being a deal-breaker when it comes to liking someone. Which in itself is pretty fucked up and says alot about you as a person.
Essentially if you surround yourself with shitty people then people are going to rightfully assume that you yourself are a shitty person. There is a reason why the saying "You are the company you keep" or "Birds of a feather flock together" became sayings.
Sure he does. Here's Sam Harris on his show defending Charles Murray's The Bell Curve.
-Liberal privilege
-Violent SJWs
-The Bell Curve is sound science
-Sam Harris and Charles Murray are treated unfairly
-Liberals are fascists
Last edited:
Have you ever seen the things that get said along with "dissenting opinions?"
Trying to play both sides when the country is in it's current state is an aggressively stupid and at times downright malicious thing to do. Not all of us has the luxury of "just having discussions" when we're and the people close to us are directly affected. When the most malicious people are walking proof that deplatforming works...then WHY the fuck are you asking people to listen and debate with their ideas or even lite versions of their ideas from disaffected moderates?
Last edited:
just looking at the christian thing though. if it does in fact come up a lot with the people you associate with and it's core to their beliefs, does that make you a christian?
Of course not. But you can't compare holding religious beliefs to being a racist sack of shit.
i mean, racist beliefs are objectively terrible beliefs, but i don't see why the comparison isn't valid. if the argument is that you are who you associate with, then i'm genuinely curious as to why that doesn't apply to religion, even when religious beliefs are core to the people you're associating with.
You can relate being religious to supporting arguably the greatest oppressor and violator of human rights over history, if you want to take that stance.
In any case, if you want to hold Rogan purely accountable for having Harris and McInnes on a couple of podcasts, you can hold Neil DeGrasse Tyson and Kevin Smith for agreeing to go on a racist podcast.
It's a logic loop that really gets you nowhere. If you don't like the guests, don't listen. If there is a common theme or subject matter that you don't agree with on a podcast, don't listen. If someone has people from a wide range of varying viewpoints, it doesn't mean those views are their own, or they may be.
Last time I saw you post you said Black Panther had the worst fan base because some people agreed with Killmonger, so this "the need to pigeonhole people is sad" rhetoric is a complete 180
I guess it really depends on who you want to dismiss, huh?
If you have christian friends, but are not christian that means that you are willing to tolerate that difference.
If you have racist friends, but you are not racist that means you are willing to tolerate racism. Which is a bullshit thing to do and therefore you yourself are a shitty person.
Now take other bigoted beliefs like homophobia or xenophobia and apply the same logic. You surround yourself with shitty people who are openly terrible then you yourself are a terrible person for tolerating and supporting their terrible opinions. Its not rocket science.
So essentially you have nothing to say but you feel the need to criticize what others are saying in an incredibly general way so as to not risk facing criticism yourself. Cool.
i would definitely agree that a person who hangs around christians probably tolerates their beliefs, but that's different from having the beliefs yourself.
you can defintiely make that argument that hanging around racists makes you tolerant of it, but similarly with religion, i don't think that necessarily implies that you have the same racist beliefs. let's say that jim is a racist, and i'm a friend of a friend of a friend of a friend of jim. by your logic, that makes me a racist. people are more nuanced than that, relationships are more nuanced than that.
that's why that "get rid of everyone in your life who supports trump" thread from a few weeks ago came off as so naive and ridiculous.
If you know Jim is a racist and Jim is unapologetic about it and has no intention of changing that aspect of himself and you treat him like he is a totally normal guy while hanging out with him then yes you are tolerating racism. Thats not even mentioning that because Jim is a friend of a friend that means that you are friends with someone who is either a racist or is tolerating racism. Now if Jim shows up to the group and he starts trying to talk to you and you tell him to piss off then thats different. I would be okay with that.
Its not ridiculous at all. If you support Trump then you are directly supporting racism, xenophobia, bigotry, homophobia, and the destruction of the environment. I don't wanna be friends with any asshole who supports any of that.
Do you?
So instead of alt-right, which I agree he isn't, he's a sell-out pandering to a demographic solely for money and doesn't care about the shit he puts out there because he has no self-awareness or conscious, which is what I believe he is.
I don't think you realize Joe supporting alt-right agendas and allowing them the platform solely for money isn't that much better of a look. "Just having discussions" is horseshit if he is solely having people on to make money. He doesn't care about a discussion then.
So? lol
You don't get to have a friend that is a virulent racist or something and then say "Oh well I have 9 other friends that are normal human beings so its all good"
Coyote Starrk you are making too much sense.
If you are friends with racists, bigots, etc, time for some introspection and hopefully you are inevitablely severing ties with them.
I mean who you gravitate towards typically should reflect your character, views, etc no?
If you are friends with racists, bigots, etc, time for some introspection and hopefully you are inevitablely severing ties with them.
I mean who you gravitate towards typically should reflect your character, views, etc no?
Last edited:
we agree that it's tolerating beliefs to be friends with people who have them, but we disagree that you automatically share the beliefs of people you hang out with. that was the original premise.
Yes but tolerating someone that is religious is not the same as tolerating someone who openly believes that minorities are sub-human and gay people don't deserve rights. Thats not a comparable situation. Stop trying to pretend that it is so you can excuse people surrounding themselves with pieces of shit and then claim that it shouldn't reflect back on them as a person.
Its absolutely should and thats why pretty much everyone on earth does it. You judge people based upon the company they keep. Normal people do this literally everyday. This is not some left vs right mentality. Its common sense. If someone meets you for the first time and sees your friends throwing around the N-word referring to gay people as the F-word then that person is gonna assume that you are also a shitty person due to your proximity and they would be correct in that assumption.
Not in this thread, but in quite a few others I have disagreed with the majority of people in the thread. There's not a lot of specifics going on in this thread, therefore I have nothing to agree or disagree with outside of hating the people in the photo.
Last time I saw you you took a flippant joke about fans seriously and were defending Killmonger's POV. You took a logical leap of me comparing all BP fans with the worst of the SW fans.
Here people are trying to align a real person with a hateful ideology. Not the same thing. Not even close.
People want to have it both ways, a lotta people have had the privilege to have it both ways. The same thing happens with Trump supporters, they will say "Hey I would never just grab a woman" but then they support a guy who did, in this country only some people have the privilege of speaking out both sides of their mouth while still being taken seriously, but that shit has to end. Practice what you preach, do the right thing, don't step in shit and expect to not stink, these are basics that have been ignored for too long, and they shouldn't be ignored here.
It's a good thing Era is predictable in that you aren't getting away with dive-bombing into a thread with misinformation or opinions that harm people without being called out on it, and saying all political threads go the same way isn't true at all, there is a *ton* of disagreement among users, the only real prevalent overarching opinion is that we need to support and give a platform to marginalized people, and end discrimination, racism, and bigotry (and there are plenty who would even disagree with that probably). If you are interested in and serving those goals I don't think you'll find a ton of significant pushback compared to someone who is not. If you are getting pushback you should wonder if you are trying hard enough or trying the right way to achieve those goals.
never said or implied that they were. you're the one that's been moving goal posts from "you share the beliefs of those you associate with" to "the beliefs you choose to tolerate are a reflection of your character". the latter is absolutely true, the former is naive and sophomoric. the beliefs in question are inconsequential to me in this argument, i'm saying that language matters and cutting back back on hyperbole is probably useful.
Obviously not, but the idea that they are necessarily disparate isn't a given either. There is certainly immutable objects within religion that shouldn't be tolerated. Don't forgive someone for being a bigot if they hide it behind their religion.
Jesus fucking Christ. Joe is being an actual alt right/nazi/whatever the fuck enabler right here. How do you not stop him at saying there are genetic reasons among races for differences in IQ? Or fail to object to it at all?
He's using Asians to disprove the concept of priviledge in general as well. They laugh at the notion of this implying white supremacy then continue to use their talking points. This is why you can't let these fuckers appear to be affable, normal people. Ha ha ha, how could it possibly be white supremacy! See we'll even admit Asians are smarter than us by birth!
Dipshits will lap this up without doing any research and assume that this guy has no agenda and that the Bell Curve is legitimate. Why are those liberals so mean about it? This guy seems really civil.
Oh, it was a joke now? A very convenient cop out. Everything is "just a joke" these days
You were throwing around labels because people agreed with a fictional character that posed no real world threat to anyone and was designed to be sympathetic, because you disagreed with that you said Black Panther fans are the worst
Now when when a JAQoff with many real world followers entertains ideologies that do pose real world threats to actual people, you're all "it's sad people are labeled"
It's just funny how quickly hypocritical people are
- Status