Joe Rogan * Mod Warning Post 234*

nullzero

Woke Hogan wrote: »

Which civil liberties are being infringed exactly when it is suggested that someone like Joe Rogan shouldn’t have certain (let’s call them) ideologues on his programme without fact checking or employing any kind of journalistic scrutiny?

What you really mean when you say "employing any kind of journalist scrutiny" is, "finds a means of having a world view that is exactly the same as mine".

Most of us can listen to even the most ridiculous ideas without mindlessly aping them.

Its all a moot point anyway, the ideal you subscribe to is winning hands down. Nobody will be allowed to have an opinion that is outside "terms of service" parameters of youtube or twitter in the real world within a few years.

Three cheers for the nanny state, freedom of speech thought and expression is/was evil, good riddance to it.

Earendil

Woke Hogan wrote: »

Which civil liberties are being infringed exactly when it is suggested that someone like Joe Rogan shouldn’t have certain (let’s call them) ideologues on his programme without fact checking or employing any kind of journalistic scrutiny?

There is either freedom of speech or there isn’t.

Woke Hogan

Woke Hogan wrote: »

I also watched Peterson debate Zizek. It was the intellectual equivalent of a cat (Zizek) toying with a mouse (Peterson) before killing it. It really showed how much of a complete lightweight Peterson is.

This tells me all I need to know..

Earendil

Woke Hogan wrote: »

I think everyone on a far reaching programme like that should be scrutinised.

I saw this interview with Ben Shapiro. He’s such an effective debater that he managed to get into an argument with himself and had to flee the studio.

https://youtu.be/6VixqvOcK8E

I also watched Peterson debate Zizek. It was the intellectual equivalent of a cat (Zizek) toying with a mouse (Peterson) before killing it. It really showed how much of a complete lightweight Peterson is.

Would you have a link for the Peterson/Zizek debate please?

85603

Turquoise Hexagon Sun wrote: »

Not all people think no-platforming is a constructive way handle differing views. I certainly am not a person that believes that. I think people should have the right to be wrong. They have the right to be ****ty and vile it they want to. Censorship snd shutting people down by the way of no-platforming is harmful. It's not good for discourse, not matter how much you think you are on the side of righteousness.

Youtube don't censor, only governments can censor.

Censorship is when you are pursued. Not when a company denies you use of their private property.

Youtube, and its shareholders, owe nothing to anyone who doesn't have a contract with them.

Just as Alex Jones or Shapiro can just say 'no thank you' to someone who wants to sell the communist manifesto on their site, youtube retains that same right.

As do you for any website you may own.

There is no high lofty argument about the tenets of free speech vs authoritarianism and its consequences on society and all that horsesht when it comes to youtube.

Youtube never promised free speech - quite the opposite in fact, doesn't owe you use of their property, and wont pursue you if you say what you want elsewhere.

Whats more, they have to filter their content to comply with american law. Or else they'd have all sorts of 'exotic' content, how to build explosives, why you need to kill celebrity x, etc.
why were the patriots never up in arms about this.

rogans recent move to spotify (and russle brands use of luminary) shows alternatives exist.

what happened in the case of youtube not featuring/removing certain content was that basement dwellers decided that their mild inconvenience was of global level importance.

your free speech is out there, in the press, on the internet, at the printers, in conference halls, nobody from youtube will stop you.

blinding

Woke Hogan wrote: »

I also watched Peterson debate Zizek. It was the intellectual equivalent of a cat (Zizek) toying with a mouse (Peterson) before killing it. It really showed how much of a complete lightweight Peterson is.

;);)

You are 1 of very few people who saw that debate like that. Talk about confirmation bias.

As the Left /Communism has so little to offer, a Rock would win a debate with a Leftie / Communist.

Jordan Peterson won what was not even a contest. How could it be a contest when the Left / Communism has nothing to offer but the 100 Million Dead that it has already killed ! !

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

iamstop wrote: »

Some of those on here bashing Joe because not every single show he does is up to your high standards, are the same people that binge watch dancing celebs. Get over yourself.

And some of them aren’t. What a daft generalisation.

EagererBeaver

Earendil wrote: »

This is how they work when they don’t agree with someone - brand them as ‘dangerous’.

I disagree with most of the far left ideology, but would not be in favour of deplatforming a single one of those commentators. Ironically I feel that would be an infringement on their civil liberties, which I would find unacceptable...regardless of their ‘woke’ crap.

People get deplatformed as a result of breaching the terms and conditions they sign up to when making use of services like Twitter, YouTube, Facebook etc. It's nothing to do with civil liberties.

Ironically, this is very like a Joe Rogan conversation. Someone banging on about rights and entitlements they clearly have no understanding of whatsoever.

Woke Hogan

nullzero wrote: »

What you really mean when you say "employing any kind of journalist scrutiny" is, "finds a means of having a world view that is exactly the same as mine".

Most of us can listen to even the most ridiculous ideas without mindlessly aping them.

Its all a moot point anyway, the ideal you subscribe to is winning hands down. Nobody will be allowed to have an opinion that is outside "terms of service" parameters of youtube or twitter in the real world within a few years.

Three cheers for the nanny state, freedom of speech thought and expression is/was evil, good riddance to it.

No, what I mean is what I say. I leave it to the likes of your heroes Alex Jones and David Icke to hide behind wink wink hidden messages when they’re referring to “bankers” (Jews) and “lizards” (Jews).

The ideal I’m subscribe to being journalistic integrity from internet content creators isn’t winning hands down, I’m afraid. I think that you’ll find that there’s significantly more unregulated and unverified news sources out in the wider world than ever before.

Note that I have only spoken about Rogan’s personal responsibility as a broadcaster to millions, without once ever mentioning governmental intervention or censorship. You’re inventing invisible enemies to rail against.

Jesus Christ lads.. neither of them won it..it was badly designed, they spoke at cross purposes and then came to an agreement on a lot of stuff..

The tragedy of was how you had everyone going "My guy won.."

Woke Hogan

Woke Hogan wrote: »

Note that I have only spoken about Rogan’s personal responsibility as a broadcaster to millions, without once ever mentioning governmental intervention or censorship. You’re inventing invisible enemies to rail against.

He's a dude with a podcast.. Demand journalistic integrity from the journalists..

nullzero

85603 wrote: »

Youtube don't censor, only governments can censor.

Censorship is when you are pursued. Not when a company denies you use of their private property.

Youtube, and its shareholders, owe nothing to anyone who doesn't have a contract with them.

Just as Alex Jones or Shapiro can just say 'no thank you' to someone who wants to sell the communist manifesto on their site, youtube retains that same right.

As do you for any website you may own.

There is no high lofty argument about the tenets of free speech vs authoritarianism and its consequences on society and all that horsesht when it comes to youtube.

Youtube never promised free speech - quite the opposite in fact, doesn't owe you use of their property, and wont pursue you if you say what you want elsewhere.

Whats more, they have to filter their content to comply with american law. Or else they'd have all sorts of 'exotic' content, how to build explosives, why you need to kill celebrity x, etc.
why were the patriots never up in arms about this.

rogans recent move to spotify (and russle brands use of luminary) shows alternatives exist.

what happened in the case of youtube not featuring/removing certain content was that basement dwellers decided that their mild inconvenience was of global level importance.

your free speech is out there, in the press, on the internet, at the printers, in conference halls, nobody from youtube will stop you.

The problem with what you're saying is that ignores how all pervasive platforms such as YouTube are.

What is seen as normal on YouTube becomes what is permissable within society at large.

Jesus, most people see the world almost exclusively through the lens of their smartphones, and social media companies are undoubtedly the biggest forces in that space.

While your post has validity, the fact remains, what's accessible, and acceptable on your smartphone is day by day what is acceptable and accessible for all society. So sadly youtube does has a massive influence on freedom of expression.

EagererBeaver

It's privately owned. End of story.

nullzero

Woke Hogan wrote: »

No, what I mean is what I say. I leave it to the likes of your heroes Alex Jones and David Icke to hide behind wink wink hidden messages when they’re referring to “bankers” (Jews) and “lizards” (Jews).

The ideal I’m subscribe to being journalistic integrity from internet content creators isn’t winning hands down, I’m afraid. I think that you’ll find that there’s significantly more unregulated and unverified news sources out in the wider world than ever before.

Note that I have only spoken about Rogan’s personal responsibility as a broadcaster to millions, without once ever mentioning governmental intervention or censorship. You’re inventing invisible enemies to rail against.

Alex Jones never gets on that backs of "Jews" , in fact he's pretty hawkish in his support of Israel.
David Icke openly condemns Israel but states that he isn't anti semitic, but hey I'm sure somebody who demands journalist integrity from others would have been able to figure that out themselves.

Also, these people aren't "heroes" of mine my any measure, I never stated they were or that I even agreed with anything they said but then what have facts got to do with anything when you can make things up about people and feign moral superiority?

Woke Hogan

[Deleted User] wrote: »

He's a dude with a podcast.. Demand journalistic integrity from the journalists..

Yeah “he’s a dude with a podcast” with millions of listeners per episode. He has people like Jordan Peterson, Alex Jones, Dan Crenshaw and so on spreading idiotic ideologies without ever making a cursory attempt to challenge them himself.

He’s happy to accept the perks and benefits of having the world’s biggest podcast with none of the responsibility. So much for conquering his inner bitch.

Haha..call him a grifter there for the laugh..

nullzero

EagererBeaver wrote: »

It's privately owned. End of story.

If YouTube started espousing racist sentiment tomorrow and began inciting hatred would "It's privately owned" be a reasonable argument for allowing that to continue?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Royale with Cheese wrote: »

I'll watch clips of his podcast on Youtube, if he has someone on I'm interested in then I'll check it out. For a comedian, I've never heard him say one single funny/witty thing on his podcasts. Ever. I've never even heard him try and crack a joke. I know his standup (which is terrible) and podcasts are two completely separate things, but you'd think any comedian wouldn't be able to resist cracking the odd joke now and then.

Ha, yes, good point. And, well, that’s because his comedy is gentle, at best. He’s a grafter with connections but I don’t think he’s naturally very funny. I mean, contrast him will Bill Burr, who is frequently hilarious in normal conversation and interviews.

If I watched Rogan’s podcast without knowing he was also a comedian, I would never have guessed.

blinding

Woke Hogan wrote: »

Yeah “he’s a dude with a podcast” with millions of listeners per episode. He has people like Jordan Peterson, Alex Jones, Dan Crenshaw and so on spreading idiotic ideologies without ever making a cursory attempt to challenge them himself.

He’s happy to accept the perks and benefits of having the world’s biggest podcast with none of the responsibility. So much for conquering his inner bitch.

Jordan Peterson wipes the floor with Leftist / Communist Ideology.

Admittedly, its not hard. When Leftists / Communists killed 100 Million People they don’t have a leg to stand on :eek::eek:

Woke Hogan

nullzero wrote: »

Alex Jones never gets on that backs of "Jews" , in fact he's pretty hawkish in his support of Israel.
David Icke openly condemns Israel but states that he isn't anti semitic, but hey I'm sure somebody who demands journalist integrity from others would have been able to figure that out themselves.

Also, these people aren't "heroes" of mine my any measure, I never stated they were or that I even agreed with anything they said but then what have facts got to do with anything when you can make things up about people and feign moral superiority?

“Making things up” and “feigning moral superiority” like when you just claiming that I was celebrating the nanny state and censorship, yeah? That door swings both ways, pal.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Deleted User wrote: »

Is it only the people you oppose ideologically that you want him to question?..
Have you seen what happened anyone that tried to argue with Peterson or Shapiro?..

Well, Andrew Neil took Shapiro down in spectacular fashion. I think Shapiro got rattled because he’s used to debating people on the opposite end of the political spectrum to him. But faced with tough questioning from a fellow right-winger rattled him. The guy who tells people not to get emotional. Beautiful.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VixqvOcK8E

nullzero

Woke Hogan wrote: »

“Making things up” and “feigning moral superiority” like when you just claiming that I was celebrating the nanny state and censorship, yeah? That door swings both ways, pal.

I never said you were "celebrating" anything(oh look you're making things up and feigning moral superiority AGAIN).
Your posts did seem to support censorship, once it's a type of censorship you agree with, I haven't made this up, you wrote it pal. Be careful that door doesn't hit you in the backside.

Woke Hogan

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Well, Andrew Neil took Shapiro down in spectacular fashion. I think Shapiro got rattled because he’s used to debating people on the opposite end of the political spectrum to him. But faced with tough questioning from a fellow right-winger rattled him. The guy who tells people not to get emotional. Beautiful.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VixqvOcK8E

Shapiro made a complete and absolute tit out of himself there. Just like he always does whenever he has to engage with anyone who isn’t a weepy “gender studies” undergraduate student or someone else who is easy to bully in a discussion.

Woke Hogan

nullzero wrote: »

I never said you were "celebrating" anything.
Your posts did seem to support censorship, once it's a type of censorship you agree with, I haven't made this up, you wrote it pal. Be careful that door doesn't hit you in the backside.

Where did I “write it?” Where did I support censorship? Prove it.

85603

nullzero wrote: »

Alex Jones never gets on that backs of "Jews" , in fact he's pretty hawkish in his support of Israel.
David Icke openly condemns Israel but states that he isn't anti semitic, but hey I'm sure somebody who demands journalist integrity from others would have been able to figure that out themselves.

Also, these people aren't "heroes" of mine my any measure, I never stated they were or that I even agreed with anything they said but then what have facts got to do with anything when you can make things up about people and feign moral superiority?

Jones and Icke are dangerous idiots.

And while I support their right to free speech, Im quite content for that right to stop at the door of a private company like youtube.

Zero thought is give to the faceless corporation, fair enough, but what of the rights of the employees and owners of this faceless corporation.

They might wake up one day and hear of some terrible act committed by some mentally ill person who listened too much to these ranting idiots. And now they're complicit. Having not filtered out their ramblings, lest the patriots start banging on again.
Wouldn't that be nice for them.

I want to put my piece titled 'why you shouldn't listen to assclowns like Icke or Jones' on the websites of Icke and Jones.

Im thinking they wont let me, probably needing the page space to sell brain pills and water filters, and I support their right to manage their private property as they like.

All the various free speech warriors out there have to do is open a new tab and go to their space-guardians respective websites. It takes a lot less energy to do that than it does to reee about fighting for free speech.

How censored are you that all your nonsense is a new tab away, and that all your books are available on amazon, barnes and noble etc.

blinding

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Well, Andrew Neil took Shapiro down in spectacular fashion. I think Shapiro got rattled because he’s used to debating people on the opposite end of the political spectrum to him. But faced with tough questioning from a fellow right-winger rattled him. The guy who tells people not to get emotional. Beautiful.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VixqvOcK8E

Shapiro took it for granted that Andrew Neil was your typical BBB Leftie Luvvie ! ! !

99% of the time Shapiro would probably have been right but he had ( in Andrew Neil ) the one BBC person who is not a BBC Leftie Luvvie ! !

EagererBeaver

nullzero wrote: »

If YouTube started espousing racist sentiment tomorrow and began inciting hatred would "It's privately owned" be a reasonable argument for allowing that to continue?

Of course not, but that's not remotely the same scenario, is it?

EagererBeaver

Is blinding a bot or just stupid?

nullzero

Woke Hogan wrote: »

Where did I “write it?” Where did I support censorship? Prove it.

You have stated that Rogan shouldn't be giving a platform to Jones or Shapiro (I'm assuming if he was employing your preferred measure of journalistic scrutiny to these people he wouldn't have them on his show) which is supporting censorship. I can only take from what you've said that you believe those people don't deserve a platform which is in effect censorship of them and their beliefs.

markc1184

I watch his YouTube clips. If it's a subject or person I find interesting I might then dig out the podcast episode. His YouTube clips have led me down some very interesting rabbit holes when there has been an enjoyable guest on.