Joe Rogan * Mod Warning Post 234*

nullzero

EagererBeaver wrote: »

Big first day at school for you yesterday.

Nice superiority complex you've got there.

EagererBeaver

nullzero wrote: »

Nice superiority complex you've got there.

When someone turns up fresh and posts 63 times in one day in a rambling and incoherent fashion on a wide range of topics, I tend to raise an eyebrow, yes.

Suspicion? Yes. Superiority? Well, that's not for me to say.

nullzero

EagererBeaver wrote: »

When someone turns up fresh and posts 63 times in one day in a rambling and incoherent fashion on a wide range of topics, I tend to raise an eyebrow, yes.

Suspicion? Yes. Superiority? Well, that's not for me to say.

What has someone else's actions got to do with you being unpleasant?

blinding

Roger Penrose (physicist ) was also on, and Rogan did a nice interview with a man of senior years. It was well done.

EagererBeaver

nullzero wrote: »

What has someone else's actions got to do with you being unpleasant?

If I think someone's sole purpose on the board is to troll for the sake of it, I'll dismiss them out of hand. I like to do so with my withering sense of humour.

Interesting that my response to an obvious troll is the post you purport to take issue with (because, let's face it, it's a joke, everyone knows it and you're not in any way offended by it) rather than, for example, the one that calls those who hold half the views in this debate "weak betas". The author of that post has a Tolkien reference for their username but we'll leave the discussion about the threat the right wing Tolkien superfans pose to society for another day.

nullzero

EagererBeaver wrote: »

If I think someone's some purpose on the board is to troll for the sake of it, I'll dismiss them out of hand. I like to do so with my withering sense of humour.

Interesting that my response to an obvious troll is the post you purport to take issue with (because, let's face it, it's a joke, everyone knows it and you're not in any way offended by it) rather than, for example, the one that calls those who hold half the views in this debate "weak betas". The author of that post has a Tolkien reference for their username but we'll leave the discussion about the threat the right wing Tolkien superfans pose to society for another day.

Withering sense of humour? So you thought what you said was funny? Ah right.

So you're free to be unpleasant once you feel justified in doing so?

EagererBeaver

nullzero wrote: »

Withering sense of humour? So you thought what you said was funny? Ah right.

So you're free to be unpleasant once you feel justified in doing so?

This gets better and better. It's normally people of your ilk who brand everyone who disagrees with what they see as their absolute right to do and say as they please as snowflakes. How ironic.

Although, given the number of Joe Rogan fans in this thread, the inability to work out what's funny and what's not is, perhaps, unsurprising.

nullzero

EagererBeaver wrote: »

This gets better and better. It's normally people of your ilk who brand everyone who disagrees with what they see their absolute right as do and say as they please who brand everyone else as snowflakes. How ironic.

Although, given the number of Joe Rogan fans in this thread, the inability to work out what's funny and what's not is, perhaps, unsurprising.

There's a difference between expressing an opinion and just being unpleasant for the sake of it.

You're welcome to your opinion, insulting people really only serves to diminish your position and highlight your inability to debate properly.

EagererBeaver

nullzero wrote: »

There's a difference between expressing an opinion and just being unpleasant for the sake of it.

You're welcome to your opinion, insulting people really only serves to diminish your position and highlight your inability to debate properly.

You appear to be under the misguided understanding that one guy attempting to draw parallels between the corporate policies of YouTube (an internet video sharing company, as a gentle reminder) and those of, *checks*, Idi ****ing Amin constitutes "debate" on this topic.

The only other poster in this thread who I've mocked rather than actually discussing the issue is one who appears to just randomly land in to shout "leftie luvvies" and "100 million dead" a few times.

Please indulge me my small, small wish to not try and debate actual issues with such people.

nullzero

EagererBeaver wrote: »

You appear to be under the misguided understanding that one guy attempting to draw parallels between the corporate policies of YouTube (an internet video sharing company, as a gentle reminder) and those of, *checks*, Idi ****ing Amin constitutes "debate" on this topic.

The only other poster in this thread who I've mocked rather than actually discussing the issue is one who appears to just randomly land in to shout "leftie luvvies" and "100 million dead" a few times.

Please indulge me my small, small wish to not try and debate actual issues with such people.

So it's OK for you to pass comments about others but you can't accept comments being made about you? I understand now, you should be free to insult people but anyone pulling you up on it had better watch out, because you're right.

EagererBeaver

To be honest, I couldn't give the slightest **** what some absolute random on the internet says about me. Am I supposed to or something???

As for my "being right" vs "opinion", there is no debate to be had, as the topic under discussion (deplatforming of controversial individuals or groups for breaching Ts&Cs by privately held organisations) is not one of opinion. Rather it is one of fact.

You don't have to like the fact that YouTube or Facebook or Twitter or whatever can deplatform people but implying that there's anything more to it, or more sinister than an organisation enforcing its policies (lol at the suggestion that it is an infringement of civil liberties) is disingenuous, at best.

As an example, I could spam boards.ie abusing you left, right and centre and I would, rightly, get banned by the mods. My civil liberties would certainly not have been infringed and it's certainly not because the guys who run boards.ie are this group of "lefty luvvies" (who share an ideology whose followers killed 100m people of course!) who have some sort of responsibility to allow everyone to air their views and opinions, no matter how controversial or distasteful, because they have, by default, become a group that shapes the larger views of the population. Anyone trying to claim otherwise, would of course, be rightly laughed out of the joint.

Woke Hogan

nullzero wrote: »

Have you heard of Internet censorship?

I have and it has nothing to do with my criticism of Joe Rogan.

nullzero

Woke Hogan wrote: »

I have and it has nothing to do with my criticism of Joe Rogan.

But it's relevant to the discussion at hand.

riffmongous

EagererBeaver wrote: »

Although, given the number of Joe Rogan fans in this thread, the inability to work out what's funny and what's not is, perhaps, unsurprising.

It's not often that someone is actually able to back-up claims of a withering sense of humour within one post

nullzero

EagererBeaver wrote: »

To be honest, I couldn't give the slightest **** what some absolute random on the internet says about me. Am I supposed to or something???

As for my "being right" vs "opinion", there is no debate to be had, as the topic under discussion (deplatforming of controversial individuals or groups for breaching Ts&Cs by privately held organisations) is not one of opinion. Rather it is one of fact.

You don't have to like the fact that YouTube or Facebook or Twitter or whatever can deplatform people but implying that there's anything more to it, or more sinister than an organisation enforcing its policies (lol at the suggestion that it is an infringement of civil liberties) is disingenuous, at best.

As an example, I could spam boards.ie abusing you left, right and centre and I would, rightly, get banned by the mods. My civil liberties would certainly not have been infringed and it's certainly not because the guys who run boards.ie are this group of "lefty luvvies" (who share an ideology whose followers killed 100m people of course!) who have some sort of responsibility to allow everyone to air their views and opinions, no matter how controversial or distasteful, because they have, by default, become a group that shapes the larger views of the population. Anyone trying to claim otherwise, would of course, be rightly laughed out of the joint.

People have the right to discuss the morality of people and their opinions being banned from platforms who have monopolies within their chosen space. Just because somebody says something you disagree with doesn't give you the right (on a moral level) to be an ass hole to them.

As for whether or not you are supposed to give a **** about somebody pointing out how unpleasant you are, that's down to you. We all receive criticism in life, sometimes it's worth taking a look at why it was given in the first place. There are people who think they are above criticism maybe you fit into that category, who knows?

Woke Hogan

nullzero wrote: »

But it's relevant to the discussion at hand.

Not really. I think you have some prepared statements to make in your head about "censorship" and you're just itching to roll them out and inorganically shoehorn them into this discussion.

In a real grown up discussion you counter the points being made, you don't invent points of view for your opponents and debate those.

nullzero

Woke Hogan wrote: »

Not really. I think you have some prepared statements to make in your head about "censorship" and you're just itching to roll them out and inorganically shoehorn them into this discussion.

In a real grown up discussion you counter the points being made, you don't invent points of view for your opponents and debate those.

Grown up discussion?
You stated that censorship involves the following (a quote from you) ; " if I was a policeman or a soldier and I came around to your house, burned your “research” and killed you for speaking out, then I would have been censoring you. Or if I had in any other way stopped you from publishing your theories. Then I would have censored you".

The following is a description of Internet censorship that you will find if you enter "Internet censorship" into Google ; "Internet censorship is the control or suppression of what can be accessed, published, or viewed on the Internet enacted by regulators, or on their own initiative. ... Other types of censorship include the use of copyrights, defamation, harassment, and obscene material claims as a way to suppress content.".

So you have said that internet censorship isn't relevant to this discussion(baffling as youtube exists on the Internet and we are discussing this issue on the Internet) however if we go back to your earlier statement and look at the final sentence "Or if I had in any other way stopped you from publishing your theories. Then I would have censored you." It would appear that you inadvertently described Internet censorship yourself albeit unbeknownst to yourself.

If you want to condescend to me and talk about" grown up discussion" when you are demonstrably incapable of understanding the points you are trying to make yourself but display a willingness to be insulting towards other posters I'm afraid you're making a fool of yourself.

Woke Hogan

nullzero wrote: »

Grown up discussion?
You stated that censorship involves the following (a quote from you) ; " if I was a policeman or a soldier and I came around to your house, burned your “research” and killed you for speaking out, then I would have been censoring you. Or if I had in any other way stopped you from publishing your theories. Then I would have censored you".

The following is a description of Internet censorship that you will find if you enter "Internet censorship" into Google ; "Internet censorship is the control or suppression of what can be accessed, published, or viewed on the Internet enacted by regulators, or on their own initiative. ... Other types of censorship include the use of copyrights, defamation, harassment, and obscene material claims as a way to suppress content.".

So you have said that internet censorship isn't relevant to this discussion(baffling as youtube exists on the Internet and we are discussing this issue on the Internet) however if we go back to your earlier statement and look at the final sentence "Or if I had in any other way stopped you from publishing your theories. Then I would have censored you." It would appear that you inadvertently described Internet censorship yourself albeit unbeknownst to yourself.

If you want to condescend to me and talk about" grown up discussion" when you are demonstrably incapable of understanding the points you are trying to make yourself but display a willingness to be insulting towards other posters I'm afraid you're making a fool of yourself.

I have no idea why you keep dragging censorship into my criticism of Joe Rogan. I don't think Joe Rogan should have people on his programme spreading spurious ideas because he doesn't challenge their points of view or hold them to any kind of scrutiny. What does that have to do with censorship?

blinding

Joe Rogan makes it very clear that his podcast is not to be taken too seriously. Its light entertainment by having a sometimes interesting conversation in a generally and pretty much always easy going manner !

Joe Rogan may give you ideas for something serious to be looked at elsewhere. Rogans show is not to be taken very seriously !

Woke Hogan

blinding wrote: »

Joe Rogan makes it very clear that his podcast is not to be taken too seriously. Its light entertainment by having a sometimes interesting conversation in a generally and pretty much always easy going manner !

Joe Rogan may give you ideas for something serious to be looked at elsewhere. Rogans show is not to be taken very seriously !

"Joe Rogan can eat his cake and have it too!"

If it shouldn't be taken seriously then he shouldn't have presidential candidates on or people who purport to be serious political and social commentators.

As it stands he is having those people on while refusing to live up to the responsibility of giving these people a platform himself by holding his guests to any kind of scrutiny, challenging their views seriously etc. That is one "inner bitch" of his he refuses to conquer.

If he only had his meathead mates on then I wouldn't mind. Calling each other "bro" and observing that they "murdered in Yukyuk's Comedy Palace" and so on.

nullzero

Woke Hogan wrote: »

I have no idea why you keep dragging censorship into my criticism of Joe Rogan. I don't think Joe Rogan should have people on his programme spreading spurious ideas because he doesn't challenge their points of view or hold them to any kind of scrutiny. What does that have to do with censorship?

You don't think Rogan should have people on his programme you disagree with, but you don't see how saying that connects to censorship?

Let's just get this straight for a second, in your ideal world people you disagree with wouldn't be given the opportunity to appear on the most popular podcast in the world... But that's not in anyway tangential to censorship...

The mind boggles.

nullzero

Woke Hogan wrote: »

"Joe Rogan can eat his cake and have it too!"

If it shouldn't be taken seriously then he shouldn't have presidential candidates on or people who purport to be serious political and social commentators.

As it stands he is having those people on while refusing to live up to the responsibility of giving these people a platform himself by holding his guests to any kind of scrutiny, challenging their views seriously etc. That is one "inner bitch" of his he refuses to conquer.

If he only had his meathead mates on then I wouldn't mind. Calling each other "bro" and observing that they "murdered in Yukyuk's Comedy Palace" and so on.

I think the expression is "have his cake and eat it".

blinding

Woke Hogan wrote: »

"Joe Rogan can eat his cake and have it too!"

If it shouldn't be taken seriously then he shouldn't have presidential candidates on or people who purport to be serious political and social commentators.

As it stands he is having those people on while refusing to live up to the responsibility of giving these people a platform himself by holding his guests to any kind of scrutiny, challenging their views seriously etc. That is one "inner bitch" of his he refuses to conquer.

If he only had his meathead mates on then I wouldn't mind. Calling each other "bro" and observing that they "murdered in Yukyuk's Comedy Palace" and so on.

These people are also on other soft soap stuff !

If Joe was soft soaping Lefties would be ok with that ? ?

blinding

nullzero wrote: »

You don't think Rogan should have people on his programme you disagree with, but you don't see how saying that connects to censorship?

Let's just get this straight for a second, in your ideal world people you disagree with wouldn't be given the opportunity to appear on the most popular podcast in the world... But that's not in anyway tangential to censorship...
The mind boggles.

If Joe Rogan was giving an easy ride to Lefties I expect Woke Hogan would be fine with that ! !

Woke Hogan

nullzero wrote: »

You don't think Rogan should have people on his programme you disagree with, but you don't see how saying that connects to censorship?

Let's just get this straight for a second, in your ideal world people you disagree with wouldn't be given the opportunity to appear on the most popular podcast in the world... But that's not in anyway tangential to censorship...

The mind boggles.

I don't think he should have any serious political or social commentator on his programme, or any other far-reaching programme, if they're not under any kind of journalistic scrutiny or fact-checked.

You keep playing a victim and squawking censorship but nothing I have said in this discussion is in any analogous to censorship. Once again, you don't know what the word "censorship" means and you're making a tit out of yourself.

EagererBeaver

Oh wonderful, blinding is back to foam at the mouth about lefties again. I can see we're going to get far with this today.

nullzero wrote: »

People have the right to discuss the morality of people and their opinions being banned from platforms who have monopolies within their chosen space. Just because somebody says something you disagree with doesn't give you the right (on a moral level) to be an ass hole to them.

I can't believe we're back to this again. It's not a question of morality. It's a question of contract. You sign up to use a service such as YouTube, you play by YouTube's rules, end of story.

I had a look at your earliest posts on this forum. David Icke supporter. I think we should just agree that we're never going to see eye to eye on any of this and leave it at that.

nullzero

Woke Hogan wrote: »

I don't think he should have any serious political or social commentator on his programme, or any other far-reaching programme, if they're not under any kind of journalistic scrutiny or fact-checked.

You keep playing a victim and squawking censorship but nothing I have said in this discussion is in any analogous to censorship. Once again, you don't know what the word "censorship" means and you're making a tit out of yourself.

Sorry, hang on a bloody minute pal. The neck on you saying I don't understand what censorship is when I have offered definitions of what censorship and internet censorship are, you have misinterpreted what censorship means time and again and you have the cheek to say I'm making a tit of myself.

I posted a little while ago demonstrating how ridiculous your contribution here has been using quotes from you, things you posted yourself.

You're making a complete and utter fool of yourself, repeatedly and you have the gall to say I don't understand the concepts being discussed even though I have offered you definitions of these concepts whilst you have ignored that and relied instead on your own over inflated sense of self importance.

EmmetSpiceland

nullzero wrote: »

Sorry, hang on a bloody minute pal. The neck on you saying I don't understand what censorship is when I have offered definitions of what censorship and internet censorship are, you have misinterpreted what censorship means time and again and you have the cheek to say I'm making a tit of myself.

I posted a little while ago demonstrating how ridiculous your contribution here has been using quotes from you, things you posted yourself.

You're making a complete and utter fool of yourself, repeatedly and you have the gall to say I don't understand the concepts being discussed even though I have offered you definitions of these concepts whilst you have ignored that and relied instead on your own over inflated sense of self importance.

Settle down, Beavis.

I don’t like the guy, but he’s got a point. You, clearly, don’t understand what “censorship” means.

Clearly.

cournioni

Some good, some dreadful.

His brown nose podcasts with Elon Musk are cringeworthy.

nullzero

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

Settle down, Beavis.

I don’t like the guy, but he’s got a point. You, clearly, don’t understand what “censorship” means.

Clearly.

I've posted definitions of what censorship is.
Has the "Heinomite" gone to your head to the point that you can't read?

Beavis? Is it 1994 again?